Serge's Fist

"Death to the Government" - Mass Protests and Violence in Iran

2009-06-13T13:02:00.001-07:00

Presidential Mir Hossein Mousavi has called the election a "charade", comrades in and outside of Iran have said it was a farce from the very beginning. All the candidates were loyal to the Islamic Republic, and have their hands drenched in blood. The imperialists will obviously be disappointed that the pro Western candidate seems to have been cheated out of victory. The way you win an election in Iran is by winning the support of the supreme leader not at the ballot box.

The Iranian state prepared for mass protests, shutting down SMS access, blocking websites such as Facebook and the Guardian as well as deploying in excess of 100,000 security personnel. Pictures and videos are coming in from across Tehran and beyond of Mousavi supporters taking to the streets and being attacked by the police as well as members of the Basij. To complicate matters on the street, Ahmadinejad supporters have also come out celebrating and goading Mousavi supporters. From what I have heard so far, four people have been killed, many have been arrested and the police and Hezbollah are daring people to come out on to the street so that they can crack down further. Thousands have come out onto the streets as the below video shows, yet without clear leadership there can be no hope of any progress. The main slogan of the demonstrators is 'death to this government'.

The disunited colours of Iran's Bourgeois camps

2009-06-04T15:28:00.000-07:00

The political and organisational disintegration of the Labour Pary may be on everyones lips at the moment, yet in Iran, our comrades are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Bourgeois factions are entering into open war on the streets and in the media. It is "Greens" versus the "Reds" in Iran at the moment, Karoubi's "Whites" have very little chance in this election, one thing can be sure whatever coloured camp wins, the people will lose in this election either way. As the main tendencies of the Iranian bourgeoisie go into battle the imperialists are desperately trying to influence the outcome of the election. This is what is behind Obama's recent appeals to Muslims.

Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi have taken up the colour green and have been out onto the streets rallying and demonstrating. This has caused outrage, with right wing papers attacking the use of the "sacred colour" and aiming to copy the colour revolutions that took place in former Soviet Republics. The charge of a colour revolution could actually stick, as no doubt Mousavi is the most desireable candidate for the USA. Ayatollah Khamenei has commented on this, and railed against the wests "meddling" in Iran.

In the North of Tehran, youths in sport cars are driving around waving green flags in support of leading opposition candidate Mousavi. In the South of Tehran, things are a little different. Members of the Basij are out in force attacking opposition and reformist youths, so are Ahmadinejad's supporters, they are sporting red attire, which has been denounced by Ahmadinejad's campaign manager, but is continuing regardless as young Iranians are flocking to the three political centres intent on victory in this election. One Daneshjouyan-e Azadi Khah va Beraber Talab (DAB) member has told me that the South of Tehran looks increasingly like a war zone as rival factions clash. A young Mousavi supporter in the Eastern city of Mashhad has been killed by Ahmadinejad's boot boys, comrades described him as a "boy" who just wanted to see the back of the hated Ahmadinejad. That killing goes on top of the 25 killed in a bomb attack on a Mosque and the five killed in clashes on Monday.

Ahmadinejad is at the moment is visibly losing the election along with his marbles, his behaviour in a television debate was denounced by Ayatollah Khamenei in his address celebrating Ruhalla Khomeini's life and marking 25 years since his death. Ahmadinejad supporters along with the Basij are doing everything in their power to keep him in power, it is not beyond the power or the imagination of Ahmadinjad and his conservative allies to rig the election. The only thing he needs is backing from Khamenei, whatever the number is of those who vote against him, he will remain in power.

I am backing the "Blues", which as a Villa fan, is a hard thing to do. That is the colour the democratic opponents of the Theocratic regime have taken up; they are not calling for a vote for any of the candidates. They are calling for an abstention, since none of the candidates offer anything other than repression, violence and poverty for the working masses.

You have to be this big to go on this ride...

2009-05-29T10:26:00.000-07:00

Speak to any member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and they will tell you that they consistently build the United Front. They will tell you that United Against Fascism (UAF) and Love Music Hate Racism (LMHR) are both United Fronts. The problem is they are wrong and are not alone in their misunderstanding. The Permanent Revolution (PR) group, join them and the majority of the Left in getting the United Front wrong. Whilst PR does not go all the way along the road with SWP’s take on the United Front, they still manage to believe that a group of 30 people with no influence in the class has managed to form a United Front with the Labour Party. A United Front where the other party is ignorant of others existence by the way! The debate can be found here.

The biggest and most obvious mistake PR have made is that they are not a Communist Party and are a group with no influence on the working class. The united front is done on a mass scale, I don’t see any section of the masses following PR at the moment. “If the use of this tactic is to advance the cause of Communism, the actual Communist Parties carrying it out must be strong, united and under an ideologically clear leadership.” [http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/4th-congress/united-front.htm]

PR is not at that point. Neither is the majority of the Left. PR’s understanding or use of the United Front does not at all correspond with the theses accepted at the Fourth Congress of the Comintern.

The United Front tactic is to be deployed by parties which have won a significant layer of workers to communism. Trotsky is quite clear on this:
"wherever the Communist Party already constitutes a big, organized, political force, but not the decisive magnitude: wherever the party embraces organizationally, let us say, one-fourth, one-third, or even a larger proportion of the organized proletarian vanguard, it is confronted with the question of the united front in all its acuteness." [http://www.marx.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/08.htm]

The United Front tactic was introduced as workers’ were moving back towards the social democratic parties at the end of the slaughter of world war 1, it was about engaging with these workers and winning leadership of them. Over the last period the working class is abandoning the Labour Party and in the Euro elections will deal a severe beating to the Labour Party. The workers are not calling for unity with Labour Party in face of mounting assaults by capitalism, our class is having to defend itself against this onslaught led by the Labour Party.

Campaigns around school closures etc are simply campaign blocs. The United Front is a tactic of the Communist Party to win the adherents of social democracy/ labourism to socialism. In the UK we have no Communist Party. We are not even at the point communists were before the formation of the CPGB in 1920.

Trotsky is clear on what type of organisation should and can carry out the United Front tactic. Let’s look at Trotsky’s advice to the ILP, he is even more clear:

“QUESTION – Should the ILP terminate its united front with the CP?
ANSWER – Absolutely and categorically – yes! The ILP must learn to turn its back on the CP and towards the working masses. The permanent “unity committees” in which the ILP has sat with the CP were nonsense in any case. The ILP and the CPGB were propaganda organizations not mass organizations; united fronts between them were meaningless if each of them had the right to advance its own program. These programs must have been different or there would have been no justification for separate parties, and with different programs there is nothing to unite around. United fronts for certain specific actions could have been of some use, of course, but the only important united front for the ILP is with the Labour Party, the trade unions, the cooperatives. *At the moment, the ILP is too weak to secure these; it must first conquer the right for a united front by winning the support of the masses.* At this stage, united fronts with the CP will only compromise the ILP. Rupture with the CP is the first step towards a mass basis for the ILP and the achievement of a mass basis is the first step towards a proper united front, that is, a united front with the mass organizations.”[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/xx/ilp.htm]

I think looking at what else Trotsky has to say on this is helpful (sorry for the length):

“to conquer the masses – the parties are divided quite naturally and logically into three large groups:

First, there are the parties which are but at the beginning of their successes and which are not yet in a position to play a big role in the immediate action of the masses. Naturally, these parties have a great future, like all the other communist parties, but right now they cannot count very much upon the action of the proletarian masses for they are numerically weak as organizations. Hence, these parties must fight for the time being for the conquest of a basis, of the possibility of influencing the proletariat in its action (our English party is now emerging from this situation with ever-increased success).

On the other side there are parties which completely dominate the proletariat. I believe comrade Kolarov is right in claiming that this is the case with Bulgaria. What does this mean? It means that Bulgaria is ripe for the proletarian revolution and that only international conditions stand in its way. It is clear that in such a situation the question of the united front scarcely exists. In Belgium and England, on the other hand, it signifies the struggle for the possibility of influencing the proletariat and of cooperating in its movement.

Between these two extremes, there are parties which represent a power, not only in ideas but also through their numerical and organizational strength. This is already the case with most of the communist parties. Their strength may come to a third of the organized vanguard, a fourth, even a half or a bit more – that does not alter the situation in general.

What task confronts these parties? To conquer the overwhelming majority of the proletariat. And to what end? To lead the proletariat to the conquest of power, to the revolution. When will this moment be reached? We do not know. Perhaps in six months, perhaps in six years. Maybe the interval will differ for the various countries between these two figures. But speaking theoretically, it is not excluded that this preparatory period will last even longer. In that case, I ask: What will we do during this period? Continue to fight for the conquest of the majority, for the confidence of the entire proletariat. But this will not be attained by today or tomorrow; for the moment we are the party of the vanguard of the proletariat. And now still another question: Should the class struggle stop meanwhile, until we have conquered the entire proletariat? I put this question to comrade Terracini and also to comrade Renoult: Should the struggle of the proletariat for its daily bread stop until the moment when the communist party, supported by the entire working class, is in a position to seize the power? No, this struggle does not stop, it continues. The workers who belong to our party and those who do not join it, like the members of the social-democratic party and others, all of them – depending on the stage and the character of the working class in question – are disposed and able to fight for their immediate interests; and the struggle for their immediate interests is always, in our epoch of great imperialist crisis, the beginning of a revolutionary struggle. (This is very important but I mention it here only parenthetically.)

Now then, the workers who do not join our party and who do not understand it (that is precisely the reason why they do not enter it), want to have the possibility to fight for the piece of daily bread, for the bit of meat, etc. They see before them the communist party, the socialist party, and they do not understand the reason why they have parted company. They belong to the reformist General Confederation of Labor [CGT], to the socialist party of Italy, etc., or else they do not belong to any party organization. Now, what do these workers think? They say: Let these organizations or sects – I don’t know how these not very conscious workers call them in their language – give us the possibility of conducting the fight for our daily needs. We cannot answer them: But we have separated in order to prepare your great future, your great day-after-tomorrow! They will not understand this, because they are completely absorbed by their “today”. If they were able to grasp this, to them, entirely theoretical argument, they would have joined our party. With such a mental outlook and confronted with the fact of different trade union and political organizations, they have no means of orienting themselves; they find it impossible to undertake any immediate action, no matter how small or partial. Along comes the communist party and tells them: Friends, we are divided. You think it’s a mistake; I want to explain the reasons. You don’t understand them? I regret it greatly, but we are already in existence, we communists, socialists, reformists and revolutionary syndicalists; we have our independent organizations for reasons which are entirely sufficient for us communists. Nevertheless we communists propose an immediate action in your struggle for bread and meat, we propose it to you and to your leaders, to every organization that represents a part of the proletariat!” [http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/02/uf.htm]

As you can see Trotsky is quite clear on which type of organisation should carry out the United Front tactic, that is those parties that have won a significant section of the vanguard and have the ability to engage the reformists in serious way both organisationally and politically. Groups the size of PR or even the ILP are not at this point. They are at the first stage that Trotsky describes, that is the fight for a Communist Party. That fight should guide our actions in the movement. That is the fight the CPGB has taken up.

The united front against fascism is about defeating the fascist threat but it is also about winning leadership of the class. Again we must go to Trotsky:

“The program of action must be strictly practical, strictly objective, to the point, without any of those artificial “claims,” without any reservations, so that every average Social Democratic worker can say to himself. what the Communists propose is completely indispensable for the struggle against fascism. On this basis, we must pull the Social Democratic workers along with us by our example, and criticize their leaders who will inevitably serve as a check and a brake. Only in this way is victory possible.” [http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1931/311208.htm]

I don’t think it is formalistic and at the same time revisionist to simply state that a little group PR cannot form a United Front with the Labour Party. It is what is written in the theses but more importantly, it also proven by reality.

No 2 EU looks to Far Right for Votes

2009-05-09T17:58:00.000-07:00

Facebook (FB) is a peculiar world occupied by office workers, students and the unemployed. On it you can follow the latest intrigues of this or that friend, stalk the weirdest sectarians and at times find out somebody’s politics by where they post. The RMT, the Stalinist CPB and the “Trotskyist” Socialist Party of England and Wales (SPEW) have gone to lengths to try and convince us that the No2EU campaign is not right wing, not anti immigrant and certainly is not nationalist! FB exposes these claims as nothing but lies.

Leading Cardiff SPEW member Andrew Ballard has been doing his best to promote No2EU on FB, nothing wrong in that. The problem is, he is promoting them on far right, nationalist, racist and BNP controlled pages. Pages such as ‘British jobs for British people’, ‘get foreign labour out of Britain’, ‘UK jobs for UK workers’. The demands of these groups centre around getting foreigners out of the UK. For those who think we are making this up, have a look here at a copy of some of the pages he has been posting on. On these pages apart from posting links he posted this message:

‘British jobs for british workers and Italian jobs for Italian workers. The only reason the EU has such a large migrant workforce is to drive down workers wages and increase profits for the super rich. Vote no2eu on June the 4th.’

So much for a workers’ Europe then. Such slogans would find a loving home in the BNP and nationalists parties across Europe. Did he forget about internationalism?

So many of us on the revolutionary Left have been repulsed by this campaign, we have been called sectarians and all of the other usual crap internationalists get called. It is doubtful that Ballard is the only one, and is certainly not a loose cannon, he is leading cadre. When we said that No2EU is nothing more than little England politics dressed up in trade union clothes we never expected SPEW members to campaign on nationalist, far right and BNP controlled sites and pages. SPEW members need to sit up and wake up, good socialists are being dragged into a nationalist adventure by Left bureaucrats and vile opportunists.

The Death of "Nazli" (or, The Death of Vartan Salakhanian)

2009-05-08T04:06:00.000-07:00

I am usually a philistine when it comes to culture. Art generally isn't my thing, hence my distaste of an apparently Dada inspired Weekly Worker front cover for May Day. Below is a poem about an Armenian comrade who was tortured to death under the Shah, his name was Vartan Salakhanian, he refused to speak, even cry in pain, as he was being tortured to death. I put this up now, to remind comrades that we may have removed the Shah, but the torture of our comrades in Iran is going on as we speak. The Iranian regime is holding 50 comrades from May Day protests and hold many more from the social and national movements in Iran. I was told by a comrade from Iran, that when they were arrested they would recite this poem to each other.

Nazli! Spring smiled and the Judas tree bloomed.
At home, under the window, the old Jasmine has budded.
Remove [your] hand from doubt! (give up doubting)
With sinister death do not wrestle!
Being is better than becoming not being, especially in the Spring

Nazli said nothing
Head high, he clenched tooth of anger on wounded liver/heart and went.

Nazli! Talk!
The bird of silence, the chick of a tragic death in the nest, is sitting on the egg (the bird is sitting on the egg that will be the birth of a tragic death)

Nazli did not say a word
Like the sun
appeard from darkness and settled in blood and went.

Nazli did not say a word
Nazli was a star
Suddenly in this darkness, he lit up and leapt and went.

Nazli did not say a word
Nazli was a violet
He flowered and
gave the good tidings: "Winter was defeated!"
and
left ...

The Death of "Nazli" by Ahmad Shamlu

Second Statement from May Day Organising Committee

2009-05-06T15:59:00.000-07:00

Workers and freedom loving people!

This is a follow up statement to the May Day Organizing Committee’s first report on the violent attack by police and intelligence forces at the May Day rally in Laleh Park, Tehran. More than 150 workers and their families as well as activists from the women’s and students’ movements were arrested. The updates for public information and appropriate actions, as of today, are as follows:

Four days after the May Day police crackdown, about 130 women and men are still incarcerated. They are detained in unacceptable conditions in section 204 of Tehran’s Evin Prison.

The families of these esteemed friends have been incessantly contacting the intelligence and judicial centres, including the Islamic Revolutionary Court on Moalem Street (Teacher Street). They have been threatened by security forces and never receive clear answers from the judicial authorities. The relatives of the arrested workers have been gathering in unity outside the court, protesting the arrest of their loved ones.
The authorities have told some family members of the detainees that they have issued heavy bails of 50 to 100 million Toman (US$50,000 to $100,000) for the conditional release of most of the arrested activists, however, many of the arrested workers have kept up their morale and are demanding their unconditional release without any bail conditions.

The May Day Organizing Committee condemns these oppressive measures and brings to the attention of all freedom-loving people of the world the fact that all these beatings and assaults demonstrate the repressive disposition of the ruling capitalism in Iran; that’s why these people are imprisoned unjustifiably and their freedom is delayed inexcusably and their families are being penalized financially. Isn’t it the Iranian government’s security and intelligence apparatus that has to be accountable for all the financial and emotional costs of these inhumane actions?

Workers, women, students and freedom-seeking people!

Support the families of the imprisoned activists who have been gathering everyday outside the Islamic Revolutionary Court protesting the cruel and inhumane actions of the police and judicial systems. Let’s join them in solidarity!

Workers and Workers’ organization of all countries around the world!

The Iranian capitalist state has not only attacked the May Day event across Iran in recent days, they have also raided the meeting of the consumer cooperative of the Metal-Mechanics Workers in Nemat-Abad of Tehran and arrested a number of workers.

As we all know, the celebration of the first of May and the declaration of workers’ demands are absolute and undeniable rights of the working class. We see ourselves in solidarity with workers of the world, and invite you all to disseminate these reports and take necessary measures to increase pressures for the unconditional freedom of all arrested activists at May Day rallies in Tehran and other parts of Iran.

1388 May Day Organizing Committee
Tehran, Iran, May 04, 2009 (Ordibehesht 14, 1388)

The May Day Organizing Committee:

- The Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Vahed Bus Company
- The Syndicate of Workers of Haft Tapeh Sugar Cane Company
- The Free Union of Workers in Iran
- The Founding Committee of the Syndicate of Building 's Painters and Decoration's Workers
- The Center for Workers’ Rights in Iran
- The Collaborative Council of Labour Organizations and Activists
- The Coordinating Committee to Help Form Workers’ Organizations
- The Committee to Pursue the Establishment of Free Workers’ Organizations
- The Women’s Council.

No2EU Launch “a fucking disaster” says CPB Stalinist Dave Hawkins.

2009-05-01T11:00:00.000-07:00

On April 30 two members of Communist Students in Manchester attended the Manchester launch of the Left Nationalist No 2 EU - Yes To Democracy campaign. The attendance was a paltry eight, and of those eight three were from the Morning Star’s CPB, one from the Socialist Party of England and Wales (SPEW), one from Permanent Revolution and a comrade from the Green Left. So out of eight in attendance 4 were hostile to the campaign. The meeting began with an unwelcome discussion on the politics of the campaign with myself and other comrades taking the CPB to task for backing immigration controls, British jobs for British workers and little Britain politics dressed up in trade union clothes. The comrade from SPEW seemed genuinely shocked when Dave Hawkins from the CPB proclaimed that immigration controls are a great British tradition and that British workers should be protected from immigrants coming over here and taking their jobs. It took but a second for the real politics of the campaign to come out. The CPB members present seemed stupidly unaware that muttering such sentiments did nothing to help the campaign and only encouraged and angered the small but hostile audience. For over 45 minutes they were subjected to ridicule and the proper communist approach to Europe. To the credit of the SPEW member he did not engage in any abusive or arrogant remarks like the CPB members did, he listened and discussed calmly taking on the points that many comrades had raised but still saw that the positives outweighed the negatives in the campaign. It was a peculiar atmosphere considering CPB bureaucrats in Unison are witch hunting socialist trade unionists who are members of the SPEW.

Further questions where raised about the establishment of the campaign and why it was done behind the backs of not just the RMT but the entire movement. There was no democratic process or discussion within or outside the RMT. Unlike the PR member and CPB members everyone else thought that this was an important issue. The claim that the RMT are backing the electoral bloc when the RMT as a union has not discussed it or voted on it has no basis in reality.

As the meeting went on CPB members became more and more embarrassed with Hawkins spending a good five minutes with his head in his hands. Hopefully he had just realised that Stalinism and its half witted adherents will face opposition whenever they climb out of the safety of the trade union bureaucracy. Tempers did begin to fray and instead of discussing with the female comrade from the Green Left, Hawkins gave a sharp one liner that ended in “love”, to which she replied “comrade would have been fine”. So not only is the CPB happily promoting left nationalism, it’s members are also happy to be derogatory towards female comrades who are critical. Sexism has always been apart of this movement, and it is no surprise an old Stalinist is intent on perpetuating it.

The meeting was brought to an abrupt end as the CPB decided they would organise the campaign via email. They quickly ran out of the building, even forgetting to pay for the room. It was one of the most farcical launch meetings I have ever been too.

Stalinists beware, internationalists are everywhere!

Students need Marxism

2009-04-30T04:32:00.000-07:00

Communist Students puts forward the only politics that can emancipate humanity. Chris Strafford reports

On April 26 members of Communist Students gathered in central London to thrash out our perspectives for the coming period and to look critically at our work over the last year.

In spite of numerous apologies because of exams, essays and poor options for Sunday travel, over 20 comrades attended. Conference was opened by outgoing executive member Nick Jones, who reported on our activity over the past 12 months - not least the inspiring pro-Gaza occupations that spread across the UK. Comrade Jones also looked at various CS interventions within the student movement and our impact on the organised left, where we have consistently posed the need for Marxism in opposition to broad movementism. Although we are not exactly popular with the left groups, we have made modest progress in terms of influence and support over the last year. Comrade Jones also discussed our weaknesses, referring to our “sloppiness” in relation to NUS work, and called for a more systematic approach.

Capitalism in crisis

The first discussion was on the ‘Capitalist crisis and the tasks of communists’. I opened up the debate by giving a quick overview of the economic crisis and the response of the bourgeoisie.

We can see that across the world there have been profound repercussions, with an increase in unemployment and poverty, especially in the peripheral countries, as the capitalist metropoles attempt to offload the crisis onto the ‘third world’. One of the most striking examples is Pakistan, which has been used by the imperialists to further the so-called ‘war on terror’. Pakistan’s budget is unsustainably geared towards military spending, leaving large sections of the population in poverty and without basic services in many areas.

I argued that communists have two key tasks in the coming period: firstly to put forward a coherent solution to the crisis - millions are looking for answers and alternatives following the ideological blow suffered by capitalism. Whilst many on the left are putting forward reformist and nationalist responses, CS insists on working class socialism. As the pro-Gaza occupations demonstrated, students will respond to the big political questions - they are hungry for global answers and should not be fobbed off with ‘student issues’ alone.

It is important not to isolate ourselves and to ensure that we continue to participate in joint actions and campaigns with others on the left and those who constitute the semi-anarchist milieu. However, unlike others, we will not seek to trick people by hiding our politics - we will continue to put forward the only politics that can move our movement forward: Marxism.

Our movement is in desperate need of an organisation that can carry out the fight for socialism effectively: that is, we need a Communist Party and students too need to build a Marxist organisation able to incorporate different tendencies and traditions. CS is already such an organisation in microcosm - we should be confident that our ideas will continue to reach a wider audience.

The discussion which followed flagged up differences within the organisation over the emphasis of our work - should it be based on engaging with the organised left or do we need to shift towards greater campus activity and winning individual students who are not necessarily involved in the movement?

Gaza occupations

The final session of the morning was kicked off by Cat Rylance, who gave a talk on the occupation movement that swept the UK in solidarity with the people of Gaza, who were being subjected to a barbaric blockade and military assault.

The occupations had developed confidence among those taking part and a national network of support and advice sprung up via the internet. Speaking of her own involvement at the University of Manchester, comrade Rylance described how the occupation had generated support from unions and staff as well as fellow students - solidarity was offered in the shape of food and a range of other necessities. Security guards had put their jobs on the line when they refused to film activists and gather information which could be used in disciplinaries - which were being threatened by the obnoxious and at times stupid university management.

One of the features which concerned comrade Rylance was the generalised hostility towards the organised left because of the actions of groups such as the Socialist Workers Party, which is widely regarded as attempting to manipulate situations to its own advantage. Communists should work in such campaigns openly and honestly, while at the same time trying to convince people of the value and necessity of Marxism.

During the discussion many comrades spoke of their experience during the occupations. John Sidwell, who was involved at Kings College University, bemoaned the stifling of debate by the SWP when leading anti-Zionist, professor Moshé Machover, spoke at the occupation. Comrades from Sheffield reported the open and democratic atmosphere that had developed - despite the attempts by Socialist Action to close down debate and end the occupation prematurely.

Ben Lewis argued that Gaza had become a symbol and a uniting factor for the movement. He noted that throughout our history the big politics and international struggles such as Vietnam have always been able to mobilise students more than issues such as fees.

All contributors touched in some way on the aftermath of the occupation movement and the political confusion that was witnessed at the student coordination event, which had been organised by Revolution, Workers Power’s youth group, afterwards. Everyone except CS was happy to tail and subordinate themselves to a layer of semi-anarchist students. As a result there will be very little to show for the occupations in terms of an organisation that can provide leadership over the coming period.

Communism in the classroom

16 year-old school student Callum Williamson, now the youngest member of our executive, gave an excellent talk on the nature of education under capitalism, raising the necessity of critical thought and the promotion of communist ideas. He spoke about how young people are refused democratic rights and are fed history and ideas without being encouraged to critically think about them.

One area where he thought communists should be taking a lead is on the fight for voting rights for 16-year-olds - at the moment it is the Liberal Democrats who have been campaigning for this. Comrade Williamson also commented on the establishment and expansion of youth councils across the country and the so-called youth parliament, through which the establishment hoped to keep politically thinking students firmly within the mainstream. He explained how these bodies attempt to restrict campaigning and controversy to such vital questions as local recycling schemes.

During the discussion comrades encouraged the school students present to take a lead in organising their own campaign rather than relying on university students to do it for them. Many spoke about their experiences of coming into politics whilst at school though the anti-war movement. Sachin Sharma discussed his role in coordinating school strikes in Leeds through the now defunct SWP school student front, Spark, and the creation of unofficial school newspapers.

Everyone was agreed that CS should act as a facilitator for autonomous school student groups, helping them with materials and ideas.

Divisions and debate

The second half of the day was given over to discussing various motions and the election of a new executive.

Ben Lewis moved the first motion drafted by the executive, which outlined the direction of our work under conditions of capitalist crisis. It committed CS to continue building up support for Marxism on campuses, encouraging other left organisations to take revolutionary unity seriously and organising a day school on the crisis as well as a summer camp. At these events differences on Palestine and other issues will be discussed in a thorough and sharp way. The motion was unanimously agreed.

The second motion came from Sheffield CS, which centred on the need to tighten up our organisation and laid out some general guidelines for branches - they should elect a secretary who would coordinate and report back to the executive. This too was passed unanimously.

I moved the motion from Manchester which sought to amend the constitution to ensure that young communists who are not necessarily students are welcome to join and take part, and accepted that branches could be organised in a wider locality when the necessary forces to create campus branches do not exist.

Comrade Lewis argued that basing our branches in a town or city would not enable us to intervene in the campaigns that develop on a particular campus. He did not want to codify the experience of the London CS branch, which brings together communist students from across the capital in the absence of an active base of support in any one college. He argued that Manchester CS, which has comrades from the three universities, should aim for separate branches on each campus. He moved an amendment deleting “localities” from the motion.

Nick Jones discussed the unique position of the London branch, which has no grounding on a particular campus, as in Manchester or Sheffield. Comrade Jones argued that London should aim to change that situation as quickly as possible. However, Dave Isaacson could not see the basis of comrade Lewis’s objections, as the motion merely brought the constitution into line with current practice - it is where we are organisationally. But he also thought that splitting up Manchester CS, which had been working efficiently, would be “madness”. That did not mean there should be a shift away from campus activity. The amendment fell and the motion was passed by a sizeable majority.

One of the most interesting debates was sparked off by the motion submitted by Cat Rylance, opposing an “anthropocentric view of the world” which denied animal rights. Comrade Rylance spoke about the treatment of animals in capitalist production and the dehumanising effect that has on people as well as the ecological impact of heavy farming and agriculture. This triggered a wide-ranging discussion on whether animals can have rights, on food production, humanism and whether it is necessary for a communist organisation to take a position on this issue. Dave Isaacson pointed out that Marxism was by its nature “anthropocentric”.

An amendment submitted by Laurie McCauley, which replaced the entire motion with a practical suggestion for an ongoing debate and the production of a discussion document, was passed. CS will now seek to organise discussions internally and with comrades outside the group to clarify our views on this and then decide whether we should adopt a position.

The final two motions were passed unanimously. The first was from outgoing executive member Tina Becker that committed CS to back Hands Off the People of Iran’s ‘Smash the Sanctions’ campaign. The second was on the National Union of Students and its destruction of what was left of democratic organs. It committed the organisation to develop our NUS work by allocating one member to take prime responsibility for it and mandated the executive to create a programme for the NUS, including winning NUS affiliation to Hopi.

Comrade McCauley gave the closing speech. He stressed that we have a lot of work to do, but we should be confident nevertheless. We are unique amongst the student left, in that we openly and consistently put forward the only politics that can emancipate humanity: Marxism. CS will continue to work within other campaigns and build actions up and down the country. It will continue to fight for working class socialism and democracy.

Kettling and the right to freely demonstrate - WW764

2009-04-09T14:26:00.000-07:00

From WW764

The G20 summit saw thousands of people protest outside the Bank of England on April 1. The demonstration was called by a variety of groups under the banner of G20 Meltdown.

From early on the police had protesters hemmed in a ‘kettle’, which restricted access, compacted the crowd and prevented people leaving. The mood quickly turned sour, as the police kept pushing the crowd tighter and tighter. Later riot police began to attack, hitting out indiscriminately.

The police were clearly up for a fight and had been over-exaggerating the threat of violence in the weeks prior to the G20 summit. Unfortunately, the bankers will be “hanging from lampposts” and other such “humorous” statements, however qualified, from comrade Chris Knight et al played into their hands.

Sections of the media then did their bit playing up of threat of violence for all they were worth in order to excuse the pre-planned police violence well before what the G20 Meltdown organisers called their “carnival street party” had even begun.

It was in this atmosphere that Ian Tomlinson lost his life. It seems he was not part of the demonstration, but just on his way home from work. What is clear from numerous eye-witness reports1 and now a video released by The Guardian2 is that he was caught up in the action and collapsed, apparently from a heart attack. I say ‘apparently’, because a post mortem was held with indecent haste and “heart attack” was given as the cause of death, even though medical personnel are asked not to use the phrase on death certificates because of its vagueness.

The rightwing media and the BBC did their utmost to either bury the story or push the blame onto demonstrators for preventing the police from helping the man and then allegedly hurling bottles at medics. The video footage clearly shows the opposite. The police assaulted Tomlinson and then refused to aid him after requests from protestors.

An investigation is underway by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Normally one would expect a complete whitewash, but in this case a section of the establishment has decided to weigh in against the police - not only the likes of The Guardian, but the Liberal Democrats too.

It was obvious to anyone who was at that demonstration that the tactics of the police were dangerous, provocative and at times downright brutal. So what we have to be wary of is the possibility of blame being pinned onto a single officer. The attempted cover-up must have gone all the way to the top, as the statement which was released on April 1 bears no resemblance at all to the events that occurred and have subsequently been caught on numerous pictures and video. There should be a public enquiry into Tomlinson’s death that allows us full access to all police footage and documents relating to the protests; there should be absolute transparency to enable the public to scrutinise the events.

For the best part of a day protestors where kept inside the ‘kettle’, with sporadic outbreaks of violence from the police and angry attempts to break out by protestors. Bottles and other small objects where thrown at the police and at one point several hundred people did break through, only to be quickly pushed back by reinforcements of riot police. At around 7pm the police began a concerted effort to squeeze the remaining 2,000 or so demonstrators (by this time people had been allowed to leave) into a smaller space. Again demonstrators responded with bottles ... and so did the police.

Stories of agents provocateurs are commonplace, but for the first time I saw this with my own eyes. Two plain-clothes officers were throwing bottles and were chased away by demonstrators suspicious at their behaviour. On reaching police lines they showed warrant cards and were let straight through. Presumably the aim was to justify their own brutal violence and tactics in front of the watching media.

The police could not even claim to be protecting anybody, but ‘kettling’ has been validated by the highest legal authority. As The Guardian reports, “The tactic was challenged in the courts by two people who were held for seven hours at Oxford Circus, central London, during the May Day protests in 2001. They claimed their imprisonment breached their rights to liberty, but a House of Lords judgment ruled the tactics legal.”3

The ruling on this legal challenge gives the police the power to detain masses of people without charge for hours at a time, if they suspect (or claim to suspect) a threat of violence to people or property. By this tactic the police have in effect overruled the legal right to free assembly and to demonstrate - which evidently must include the right to move to and from the scene of protest.

It also gives the police the opportunity to pick out and profile known activists. The only way you could leave the ‘kettle’ was through a police line, where surveillance officers would pick out individuals for search and/or arrest. In this way the police were able to collect a vast amount of information about protestors - relating to their political affiliation as well as their personal details.

On April 2 nearly a thousand people gathered once more outside the Bank of England to protest against the brutality meted out to G20 Meltdown and Climate Camp protestors, and called for an independent investigation into Tomlinson’s death. At first the police response was as violent as it has been the previous day, although eventually they were pulled back - perhaps it dawned on senior officers that pictures of police brutality at a demonstration against police brutality would not be good PR.

There was a further demonstration of around 600 people at the Excel Centre, largely from different exile communities. This passed off without violent incident, but saw the police stop and search hundreds of individuals.

The state is arming itself with new laws (and new weapons, such as taser guns) at a time when in the current economic climate, protests are likely to become more common. The police are undemocratic and largely unaccountable. In their place, communists pose a workers’ militia; alongside that, universal military training and service for all under democratic control.

Our movement needs to get smart and get organised. We need to be able to defend our movement, our demonstrations and our picket lines. But only a mass workers’ party can hope to do this in a consistent and efficient way.
Notes

1. london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/1019
2. www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/ian-tomlinson-g20-death-video
3. www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-protests-police-tactics

I have got my ticket to the Revolution! Have you?

2009-03-26T06:15:00.000-07:00

Our beloved leader comrade Chris Knight has assured us that "London will be lost" and we will see the revolution break out in London on April 1st and spread across the world. Our beloved leader comrade said this: 'If we succeed with our revolution in the capital in the next week, that will immediately spread to Strasbourg where our anti-globalisation colleagues in France and Germany will stop the Nato summit scheduled for 4 April. Our revolution will spread out across Europe so that, come June, my prediction is that planet earth will be one country.'

The media has rightly jumped on our beloved leader as the only credible leadership of the movement. It is without a doubt that he is getting so much attention and coverage in the media because he has been rightly placed at the head of our great movement.

Chris Knight is a wanker. Fact. This mad Professor is deluded and the media have jumped on him to distract attention away from the demands of the demonstrations during the G20 but also to discredit the demonstrators before a banner has been unfurled, a rock thrown or before an anarchist has heckled a bureaucrat speaker at a rally. Any street battles at the G20 will no doubt be plenty of fun as long as you manage to dodge baton charges and arrest but what will they really achieve? We do not need a new J18 or a Genoa, the Anti Capitalist upsurge of the late 1990's and early 21st century has practically died and gave no way forward for our class and our movement.

So really all that is left to be said is this:

I am for Europe.

2009-03-19T11:22:00.000-07:00

Stalinists, Bureaucrats and Taafites of Britain Unite! Into one big pile of chauvinist shite.

The European elections are coming up and it is safe to say any left challenge will be a joke. The Morning Star's "Communist" Party along with Bob Crow (RMT Gen Sec) and some foot soldiers from the Socialist Party of England and Wales are embarking on one of the most backward and chauvinistic project I have saw from the Left in my lifetime. The No2EU - Yes to Democracy list which will be contesting the European elections on June 4th is nothing more than a UKIP list with narrow trade union demands tacked on. Peter Manson (CPGB) has covered this along with the usual sidelining of left political opponents from the foundation process here and here. Againt national chauvinism the left has to present something more serious, that something has to be a social Europe. A Europe of capital can only be opposed through the organisation of the working class on a Europe wide scale, our programmes, our tactics and our organisation have to take this into account. Against a Europe of capital, communists must put forward a positive programme, a programme that takes up the struggle for the democratic transformation of Europe and takes up the task of building a European wide party of opposition in the medium term as well as setting itself the task of taking power in the name of the working class and Marxism. Mike Macnair (CPGB) wrote an excellent article on the tasks of the movement in Europe with the onset of the economic crisis which can be read here. Anita Halpin, Bob Crow and Peter Taafe would do well to the best book (IMO) Jack Conrad has written, 'Remaking Europe'. This is why:

"Where they have made their bureaucratic-bourgeois Europe from above, the working class must make its democratic Europe from below. So there should be no truck with calls to pull the UK out of the EU because it is a “bosses’ club”, or because it is not “socialist”. An almost laughable case of pandering to left nationalism. One might just as well suggest pulling the working class out of Britain.

Not that such a daft programme has not been tried. In the 18th and 19th century there were those utopians who argued that communists should have nothing to do with bourgeois society. It was by definition a capitalist or “bosses’ club”. They established colonies in the Americas, which would practise liberty, equality and fraternity. Suffice to say, they were ill-fated. All failed. And not surprisingly Marxism has consistently criticised such schemas. The utopian communists’ denunciation of capitalism provided wonderful ammunition for propaganda. However, opting out of the struggle within capitalism was attacked as akin to surrender. Though they specifically insist that there is no longer an outside and therefore no possibility of opposing capitalism externally, the same must be said of Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt and their ‘postmodern’ call for “refusal” and “desertion, exodus and nomadism” and winning the battle “against the empire” through “subtraction and defection” and a placeless “evacuation of the places of power”.

On the contrary the communist-socialist project starts with working class organisation, positive and militant engagement, invasion and conquest of the specific centres of state power that manifestly exist and historically present themselves. The journey begins not with the destination, but the first step. So we can and must begin with the EU.

There can be no doubt that the EU, through the Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties, is, as the SWP says, the “central project of the European employers”. Nor can it be denied that the EU is an “anti-working class project” aimed at increasing the exploitation of European workers in order that European capital can “compete more effectively in world markets”. The EU “bosses’ club” aims to “maximise job flexibility” and “increase the power of the bosses in the workplace”. To that end EU institutions have been made as “undemocratic” as possible, with an “unaccountable” ECB, etc.
Against this “bosses’ Europe” it is right to proclaim oneself being in favour of “workers’ Europe. But, try as you might, you will find no SWP programme outlining how to achieve a workers’ Europe other than by rejecting the bosses’ Europe. There is no logically established linkage joining means to ends. Just saying ‘no’ to the bosses’ Europe does not lead to a workers’ Europe.

The EU is a quasi-democratic “bosses’ club”. There is no difference here. But, instead of joining with Michael Howard and the Tories, the Murdoch press and Ukip, the BNP and the national socialist left, communists take up the weapons of organisation and democracy. We have a positive programme. A social Europe, within which the political power and economic interests of the broad masses - albeit initially under capitalism - are qualitatively advanced. To bring forward this immediate aim the following seven demands, specifically concerning the EU, are presented:

1. For a republican United States of Europe. No to the Brussels constitution. Abolish the council of ministers and sack the unelected commissioners. For a single-chamber, executive and legislative, continental congress of the peoples, elected by universal suffrage and proportional representation.

2. Nationalise all banks in the EU and put the ECB under the direct democratic control of the European congress. No to the stability pact and spending limits. Stop privatisation and so-called private finance initiatives. End subsidies to, and tax breaks for, big business. Tax income and capital. Abolish VAT. Yes to workers’ control over big business and the overall direction of the economy. Yes to a massive programme of house-building and public works.

3. For the levelling up of wages and social provisions. For a maximum 35-hour week and a common minimum income. End all anti-trade union laws. For the constitutional right to organise and the constitutional right to strike. For top-quality healthcare, housing and education, allocated according to need. Abolish all restrictions on abortion. Fight for substantive equality between men and women.

4. End the Common Agricultural Policy. Stop all subsidies for big farms and the ecological destruction of the countryside. Nationalise all land. Temporary relief for small farmers. Green the cities. Free urban public transport. Create extensive wilderness areas - forest, marshes, heath land - preserve and rehabilitate animal and plant life for the enjoyment and fulfilment of the population.

5. No to the Rapid Reaction Force, Nato and all standing armies. Yes to a popular, democratic militia, equipped with the most advanced and destructive weaponry.

6. No to ‘Fortress Europe’. Yes to the free movement of people into and out of the EU. Full citizenship and voting rights for all who may wish it who have been resident in the EU for longer than six months.

7. For the closest coordination of all working class forces in the EU. Promote EU-wide industrial unions - eg, railways, energy, communications, engineering, civil service, print and media. For a democratic and effective EU Trade Union Confederation. For a single, centralised, revolutionary party: ie, the Communist Party of the European Union.

Armed with such a continent-wide programme, a republican Europe, a social Europe, the United Socialist States of Europe, can be realised. By taking the lead over every democratic shortcoming, by coordinating our defensive and offensive activity, by building upon our strength and extending our room for manoeuvre through securing far-reaching economic and political gains, we can change the “bosses’ club” into a workers’ club."

Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Duit - Éirinn go brách

2009-03-17T04:13:00.000-07:00

Luxemburg and Lenin - Thalheimer

2009-02-28T09:10:00.000-08:00

Lately I have been very interested in the so called "right opposition" in Germany which rose within and then split from the KPD. To this end I have been reading everything which is on MIA from Thalheimer, I am also waiting to get my hands on texts by Brandler. I would be very happy if comrades could let me know if they have any sources to texts which do not appear on MIA.

The whole period and factional struggle inside the comintern is very interesting, I think Thalheimers attack against Trotsky whilst being wrong on many things such as the seriousness of 'Socialism in One Country' vs 'World Revolution' is insightful into the sectarian nature of the ILO and Trotsky, and is clearly of use to us today in understanding the way Trotskyist groups approach democracy, factions and centralism.

Below is the latest text I have read from MIA:

Rosa Luxemburg or Lenin?

August Thalheimer

0n the 15 January, the revolutionary working class in Germany celebrates simultaneously Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and Lenin. In the imagination and the sentiment of the German revolutionary worker they stand on the same level, as the hitherto greatest champions of the proletarian revolution. Each of them with their own traits, their own achievements, their own revolutionary character, their own role. The name of Lenin shines in the clear lustre of the victor of the first proletarian revolution and its convulsive and infectious impact worldwide. The names of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht are surrounded by the gloomy lustre of the leaders of a revolution that was crushed in its first assault, of the martyrs of the revolutionary struggle, of the most outstandmig symbols of the arduous path of martyrdom and suffering, but also of the unbending fighting spirit of the German working class. If the former personifies the victorious present and true reality of the proletarian revolution, then the latter personify its future, its hope, its intention to break through to the advanced capitalist west. All three are equally dear to the hearts of the revolutionary working class.

Only the minor and ambitious fellows today at work on the shoulders of these giants, in dull ignorance, m order to misrepresent, to pervert and demolish what the others built up, now reserve the right to put the question: 'Luxemburg or Lenin?' And they decide it so: Rosa Luxemburg became stuck on the way to Bolshevism (the name Communism is apparently no longer sufficient), at centrism or semi-centrism, so to speak, that she was a - fortunately outmoded - stage towards the height to which these fellows have raised themselves.

It would, however, be just as wrong to counter-pose to this mistake the opposite one, that 'Luxemburgism' is the superior revolutionary doctrine to Leninism.

Not Luxemburg or Lenin - but Luxemburg and Lenin. Here it is not a question of an obscure mixture and obliteration of differences, but of recognising the particular role and significance of each of them for the proletarian revolution. Each of them gave the proletarian revolution something the other did not, and could not, give. The reasons can be found in the different historical role of the revolutionary movements in which they were, above all, rooted and which they, above all, influenced.

Firstly, we take the general conception of the proletarian revolution. Out of genuine revolutionary Marxism, both Rosa Luxemburg and also Lenin rescued the general conception of the proletarian dictatorship and the role of revolutionary violence within it. Rosa Luxemburg championed this conception first in the West not only against the revisionism of Bernstein, but also against Kautsky, against the 'Marxist Centre' - obviously so named because it tore the revolutionary centre from the Marxist conception of the proletarian revolution, by dispelling the proletarian dictatorship and limiting the revolutionary struggle to the democratic-parliamentary-trade union struggle.

The essence of the Marxist Centre, of Kautskyism, took shape in the years in which the struggle of the proletariat for power was felt to be approaching, and it implied that what was only a certain period in the struggle of the German and Western proletariat, the parliamentary and trade union struggle for reforms, was an absolute, the one and only way. Kautskyist thought faltered before the dialectical transformation of the method of struggle for reform into that of the immediate revolutionary struggle. For the whole of Marxism it substituted the fragment, which parliamentary-trade unionist struggle of the German social democracy during the years 1870-1914 embodied. Consequently, when history really posed the question of the proletarian revolution during the imperialist world war, Kautskyism sank back into social -pacifism and vulgar democracy, and vulgar democracy turned into naked counterrevolution.

Bernstein and Kautsky, the 'Siamese Twins', the poles of the same vulgar democratic and semi-Marxist narrow-mindedness, today logically find themselves together again on the basis of the same conception.

In opposition to them, Rosa Luxemburg rescued the whole, and thereby the true, conception of Marxism, due to the fact that she saw far beyond the German and Western European sector of the proletarian struggle and therefore also in time beyond the purely parliamentary and purely trade union period.

However, she was no more able than Marx and Engels, or anyone else however ingenious, to anticipate out of the depths of the mind, discoveries and creations which only the struggle of the proletarian masses itself was able to accomplish. Bureaucrats of the revolution may imagine that they can replace the creative power of the historical process of the revolution (yet in reality it only results in powerless caricatures). As long as the proletarian revolution had not assumed a real form anywhere, the conception of the proletarian revolution could not go beyond the degree of precision conceived by Marx and Engels from out of the French Commune, i.e. it had to remain standing at a still very general and abstract conception.

An important and decisive step beyond that was first taken by the revolutionary Marxist leader of the working class who stood closest to the Russian revolution of 1905-6 and therefore knew how to fully evaluate its results theoretically. This role fell to Lenin. From the 1905-6 revolution he conceived the idea of the significance of the councils as the embryo of proletarian state power and in connection with the 1917 revolution as the concrete _fundamental form of the state of the proletarian dictatorship.

The true creator of this form is the revolutionary working class itself. Lenin's epoch-making accomplishment consists in recognising the general significance and historical importance of this form faster, more sharply and more profoundly than anyone else, and in having drawn practical-revolutionary conclusions from this perception.

Following a different direction, Lenin concretised the conception, and with that also the plan and strategy, of the proletarian revolution: with regard to the relation between the proletarian, the agrarian-peasant and the national revolution. The powerful experimental field of three Russian revolutions also produced the illustrative material for that. (In Trotsky's description, in his 'An Attempt at an Autobiography', all that remains in semi-darkness, which might be agreeable for him, but is harmful for historical knowledge.)

As soon as the German revolution approached in 1918, Rosa Luxeinburg and Karl Lieblenecht, Franz Mehring, Leo Jogiches, and those united with them in the Spartakusbund, at once accepted this conception as their standpoint, and they knew how to use it with complete independence, in a country with substantially different class relations. In a country where the working class did not constitute a small minority of the population as in Russia, but the majority. Where the anti-feudal agrarian revolution had already been completed. Where capitalism had attained its highest level of development. Where the working class had for decades been used to broad mass organisations, etc.

Neither 'centrists' nor 'semi-centrists', not even mere pupils, not to mention bureaucratic subordinates of a bureaucratic supreme authority of the proletarian revolution, were capable of that task; only independent revolutionary brains could accomplish it. The outcome of these achievements, which continue the work of the Russian revolution on German ground, is the Spartakus Programme, is the Rote Fahne up to the deaths of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.

In the bureaucratic regions of the KPD it has become customary to attribute to a subjective 'error' on Rosa Luxemburg's part, that in November 1918 the Spartakusbund was not yet a strong mass party but only a numerically weak tendency in transition to wards a party. According to this conception, she already 'failed' to 'split' in 1914 or 1915, or even as early as 1903. This schoolboy notion fails to grasp that the conditions for the building of a revolutionary party out of an already existing mass party, which assembles within it the most progressive elements of the working class, are different from those where such a mass party and mass organisations do not yet exist, but where the task is to build the revolutionary core to which the unorganised proletarian masses then adhere. That was, however, the different situation in Russia.

Regarding the national question, Rosa Luxemburg's consistent struggle in Poland against petty bourgeois nationalism remains a merit not disputed by Lenin. Her theoretical generalisation was mistaken. Lenin correctly accomplished it out of the great Russian experience.

Regarding the agrarian question, too, the different conceptions can be wholly explained by the different conditions. Where feudal or semi-feudal agrarian relations in the countryside still have to be overcome, as in Russia, but also in a series of other countries, the transitional stage in which the generalisation and levelling of the individual peasant holdings is unavoidable. However, on the other hand, the later Russian experience shows that the construction of socialist industry came very quickly into intolerable contradiction with the continued existence of the individual peasant holding, and that socialist industry must be supplemented by large-scale socialist enterprise on the land. Yet it goes without saying that from this general necessity it does not follow that this step can be made at any moment but that certain real preconditions must met. Trotsky erred in this question by ignoring these real preconditions. He erred moreover by not understanding that this transition could only be carried out not against but only together with the great majority of the small and the middle peasants. If it is correct that the transitional stage of the poor peasantry in Russia could not be skipped over, then it is just as true that under different conditions the aim of the large socialist agricultural enterprise can be attained in other shortened stages and in part by other means.

In the proletarian revolution too, indeed quite particularly in it, the historical dialectic makes itself felt, in that the very same method causes transformations in opposite directions depending on the different preconditions and that for the same purposes under different circumstances occasionally contrary means and methods are called for.

Some questions of the revolutionary organisation may serve as an example. In Russia, Lenin posed the question of the strictest revolutionary centralisation at first against the Mensheviks, in a situation where it was a matter of clearly distinguishing between the elements of the proletarian and the bourgeois revolution. The loose form of revolutionary organisation favoured by the Mensheviks was the organisational expression of the dominance of bourgeois-revolutionary intellectual elements, whereas strictest centralisation was the organisational expression of the proletarian revolutionary class character of the movement.

How different to Germany before the war! The sharpest form of organisational centralisation here was represented by the party bureaucracy, more or less corroded by opportunism. The rule of the opportunist tendency expressed itself organisationally by the domination of a strictly centralist, opportunist party apparatus. Against that the task was to appeal to the revolutionary self-activity of the members. In Russia the principle of strict centralisation was bound up with the proletarian-revolutionary tendency, while it was the opposite in Germany, where this was the principle of the opportunist-petty-bourgeois-bureaucratic tendency. The same formal organisational principle in fact combined contradictory contents regarding both the direction and, in the last analysis, class objectives. In Germany, therefore, the first task was to attack the opportunist-reformist-parliamentary centralism, to smash it, in order to create the preconditions for revolutionary centralisation. A classical dialectical course of development: from the opportunist centralisation through its abolition to the revolutionary centralisation.

However, revolutionary centralisation, too, in its turn undergoes anew a dialectical course of development.

That is shown most tangibly in the question of the 'professional revolutionary'. The 'professional revolutionary' is a necessary product and tool of the leadership of the revolutionary organisation that is illegal and is not yet a mass organisation. In the legal Communist mass organisation there is no place for the 'professional revolutionary' in this sense. Here, as the movement grows, the 'professional revolutionary' too easily changes into the characterless, politically and materially corrupt careerist bureaucrat, for whom the revolutionary movement is a source of a living, of a career, of parliamentary and other posts.

Out of revolutionary centralism the danger of bureaucratic centralism develops anew, on a higher plane, and becomes a hindrance, a fetter on the movement, and against it one must appeal to the revolutionary self-activity of the party ranks. Is this danger present today in the Communist International and its sections? Undoubtedly! Consequently, however, in this question today, too, it is not a matter of Lenin or Luxemburg, but Lenin and Luxemburg. This means that upholding the Leninist principle of revolutionary centralisation today demands a struggle against the bureaucratic, opportunist or ultra-left degeneration of into bureaucratic centralism demands an appeal to the revolutionary self-activity of the membership of the Communist Party in the spirit of Rosa Luxemburg. In this struggle, however, we can also refer to Lenin, who began the struggle against party and state bureaucratism in the victorious Soviet state. These are only some examples for a general lesson that is still suitable for a variety of practical applications.

The party bureaucracy perceives Lenin and Luxemburg as opposed to each other and thereby proves that it has not understood either. We counter-pose to the bureaucracy not only the formal but also the spiritual bond of these two great revolutionary champions of the working class and their closest comrades in arms, their mutual supplementary features as revolutionary leaders, as practicians and theoreticians. What unites them, is that they used the very same principle on different levels, situations and spheres of the great totality of the world revolution.

This whole also transcends the greatest individuals. The individual greatness of revolutionary leaders is also subject to the law of the dialectic: it exists only as much as it is not just an individual, but a general thing, as it participates in the greatness of the cause of the proletarian revolution. Where an attempt is made to bring it into play counter to, or independent from it, then the greatest individual talents and gifts shrivel up to a veritable zero, as shown by manifest examples.

With Raised Fists, Red Flags and a New World in Our Hearts!

2009-02-26T11:44:00.000-08:00

On Wednesday 25 February around 600 Left wing students Marched through central London to demand free education and universal grants for all. The demo was extremely lively with a variety of groups in attendance. The speakers said the usual stuff, Mark Bergman from the SWP probably spoke the best, linking the fight for education, anti imperialism and socialism etc. Below are a couple of reports:

Communist Students - Educate, Agitate, Organise!
Socialist Worker - Students March for Free Education
The Commune - National Student Demo
Zionist Liberty/ ENS - A Step Forward

Obama Number 1 Terrorist. Fact.

2009-02-19T05:12:00.000-08:00

So when those on the left poured scorn or called us "childish" when we put 'Obama No.1 Terrorist' on the front cover of the 'Weekly Worker' they had illusions in Obama, beleived he was going to do things differently than Bush. To some extent he is doing things differently, less troops in Iraq, more into Afghanistan.

We will clearly see a continuation of the policies put together during the Bush years, unsurprisingly the Democrats are dutifully carrying out an aggressive foreign policy and carrying on a grand tradition of Democrat presidents who back imperialist mass murder just like Kennedy and Johnson did.

No Jobs, No Redundancy Pay and a Yellow Union - BMW Mini Workers

2009-02-16T13:11:00.000-08:00

from Socialist Worker

Union officials at BMW Cowley plant were pelted with fruit and shouted down as they dutifully read out the sacking of 850 "casual" workers. Some of the workers had been working there for years. Unite which organises workers at the plant have failed the workers time and time again, apart from being on precarious contracts, BMW bosses sacked them without warning and without redundancy pay.

Over the last decade casualisation has speeded up across Europe, Britain leads the way. The political mainstream have all backed and supported the fact that workers in Britain are the easiest to be sacked, are on the non-unionised and work longer hours. Through the storm of casualisation the union leaders have sat on their hands and stuck their hands either in the sand or up New Labour's arse (e.g. Dave Prentis!)

I remember from my time spent in the organisation that Solidarity Federation ran a campaign called 'Stuff Your Boss'. This campaign was about informing casual workers about their rights, something the unions should have been doing. The TUC unions have not taken casualisation seriously or even attempted to organise causal workers, this has left workers up and down the country even more vulnerable during the economic turmoil. It is essential that the union rank and file reach out to casual staff and bring them into the union and then move forward to fight casual contracts and all precarious work.

Urgent action is needed to defend jobs, the union leaders are not going to organise it. Workers should look towards the Lindsey oil Refinery workers, who broke the bureaucrats hold and broke the anti trade union laws in defence of jobs and conditions. The car industry across the world is under massive strain, in Britain this will speed up the slow lingering death of the car industry. A successful attempt to cohere the rank and file around a clear strategy is desperately needed.

Striking Against Poverty Pay and Stalinist Bosses

2009-02-13T09:44:00.000-08:00

The Morning Star prides itself on being the only "socialist" English language daily in the world, yet this plucky little paper treats it's workers like shit. Unlike other papers of the Left, the staff is not sourced from the ranks of the party that controls it, the Morning Star copies the big papers by maintaining the boss-worker relationship. The Weekly Worker has commented on this strike earlier this year, now the ballots are in and the strike is on. Below is the statement by the National Union of Journalists.

Victory to the Strikers! Down with Stalinist Bosses!

'They've voted 11 to three in a ballot for industrial action and last night called a one-day walk-out for Monday 23 February - with a week of strike action to follow if management refuses to compromise.

NUJ Father of Chapel Steve Mather said: "We're not going to take any more of our bosses' broken promises."

Two years ago, management at the socialist daily averted strike action by pledging to boost pay as soon as money was available.

But, after a £600,000 investment from an "anonymous consortium", staff have been told that none of it will go on their wages. NUJ members have roundly rejected an offer close to 2008 inflation - effectively a pay freeze - alongside a one-off four per cent bonus, because it does nothing to address the long term issue of low pay at the title.

Steve explained: "We don't need one-off bribes, we need a step towards decent pay.

"We all work hard to bring out a decent paper against all the odds, yet our bosses won't even pay us £19,000 after the biggest investment in our history."

NUJ General Secretary Jeremy Dear backed the Morning Star chapel, saying: "Our members feel forced into this action by a management that is refusing to pay its staff a fair rate for their work. They don’t want to go out on strike but if that’s what it takes to win fair pay then they are clear that is what they’ll do."

Deputy Father of Chapel Carl Worswick added: "It's time for management to put its money where its mouth is. We write about workers fighting for fair pay all the time - now it's our turn."

The paper's management committee, which includes several leading trade union figures, has already unilaterally imposed an offer of three per cent on the journalists. The imposition of a pay deal has only served to intensify the dispute.

The NUJ has today served notice on Morning Star management that its members will take strike action on Monday 23 February and from Sunday 1 March to Friday 6 March.'

Derek Simpson: Wanker.

2009-02-13T04:02:00.000-08:00

The over-paid bureaucrat leader of the Amicus section of Unite, helps undermine the hard work carried out by Unite stewards during the recent strike wave to move the strikes away from falling into nationalism. Along with this he is buying into the sexist use of women by the Star to sell their rag. Let us hope Jerry wins!

I Am. I Was. I Will Be. The Iranian Revolution

2009-02-12T09:11:00.000-08:00

The revolutionary storm that swept away the 'King of Kings' in Iran in 1979 is still a source of much debate and mass confusion in the international workers' movement. Was it a revolution, a counter revolution? What was the involvement of the United States, the imperialists and the role of the USSR? Was it a workers' revolution or an Islamic revolution? Below are a few articles that I beleive will clarify some of the issues as well as raising more questions.

Raya Dunayevskaya - Grave Contradictions of the 1979 Iranian Revolution (1979)

Yassamine Mather - Iran: After the Revolution (2009)

Torab Saleth - Islamic Revolution or Counter Revolution (2009)

For more info and how to fight sanctions, the drive to war and the Islamic Republic go here.

Back to Work Strikers Go! - What Happened?

2009-02-05T03:24:00.000-08:00

Strikers at the Lindsey Oil Refinery have voted to go back to work. This brings to an end a confusing and dangerous time for the Left. What is needed is a review of the facts so that we can draw the correct conclusions and rectify the mistakes that some have made. The strikers have agreed terms which would create 102 new jobs and would not see a single foreign worker lose their job, in spite of what Workers Power have been saying. During the strike slogans were used that was backwards, if you scratch the surface and not just watch the BBC, it was easy to see that the strike was about conditions, pay and agreements. The strikers proved their left critics and the right wing opportunists wrong when at a mass meeting they voted for unity with the Italian workers. Another slap in the face for the for the far right and the confused Left was when Polish workers in Plymouth came out in solidarity with the strikers.

The SWP has stuck to their pathetic centrist line, Workers Power have come out confused and ill informed and stuck to their guns regardless of being proved wrong many times. The AWL, made u-turn whilst they was organising a picket of unite offices, the sad effect was, a member who was told to organise the picket by two EC members was called a scab, obviously he was slow on taking up the new line! That picket was a farce, two pickets and two counter pickets! Anyone up for watching the 'Life of Brian' or 'Citizen Smith'? Socialist Fight, the new kids on the block have also condemned the strike along similar lines of Workers Power.

On the other side the Socialist Party, who have done a sterling job amongst strikers and on the unofficial strike committee. Other groups who have backed the strikers but criticised the reactionary slogans are the CPGB, Permanent Revolution, the Commune and from a more uncritical position of the slogans the Morning Star's Communist Party of Britain and Respect. The slogans must have been right up the street of the CPB and their Stalinist programme, 'The British Road to Socialism'. Maybe they could of brought out placards which read 'British Socialism for British Workers' ?

The BNP jumped for joy when the saw the strikes break out with slogans such as 'British Jobs for British Workers' only to be kicked off site after site by the workers and to see foreign workers back the strike. The BNP's ability to get in and amongst the strikers was practically non-existent and their involvement and support has been over played massively. So the facsists got excited only to be left deflated as the strikers wanted fuck all to do with them and their knuckle draggers.

There was a real danger with this strike, it could have been sent along nationalist and racist lines yet through the work of SPEW and the common sense of the strikers, the strike moved decisively into solidarity with the non-unionised Italian workers. The strike was a necessary struggle against undermining conditions, contracts and agreements which are going to become more and more common during the downturn. If the working class is going to keep its dignity and move forward then we can learn from this strike.

PFLP: Resistance is Our Right

2009-02-04T04:59:00.001-08:00

'Comrade Abu Wadih, spokesperson of the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, armed wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, emphasized that our Palestinian people have the right to exercise all forms and means of struggle to gain their rights, emphasizing that all of our options must be kept open to people without restrictions in the face of the ongoing criminal occupation.

Abu Wadih, in a television interview on February 3, 2009, stressed that the barbaric aggression on the Gaza Strip was an attack by a brutal occupier on the entire Palestinian people, not an exchange of fire between two equal parties. He stated that the position of the Front and of AAMB was clear on the question of ceasefire - that resistance will continue so long as the occupation continues, including the siege of Gaza and closure of the crossings.

Comrade Abu Wadih stressed that the Palestinian resistance is central to people's lives, not isolated from the people, as is the case with all national liberation movements. The occupier, he noted, attempts to use this as a pretext to justify its massive bombing and massacres against our people, the attacks on civilians and the use of all forms of weaponry, including internationally banned weapons, including tanks, aircraft, warships bombs and missiles. The entire world, he said, is a witness to the crimes committed by the occupier in Gaza and exposes the utter falsity of claims to Zionist "ethical conduct." Internationally, the people of the world expressed massive popular support for our people under aggression and siege.

The occupier attempted to destroy the resistance, said Abu Wadih, however, as the Palestinian resistance is popular, it cannot be isolated or destroyed. The Palestinian resistance is struggling based on the popular masses, for the right of the Palestinian people to liberation and self-determination, and in order to attempt to destroy those fundamental rights, the occupier bombed children, the elderly, schools, homes and social institutions - yet nevertheless met only steadfastness and never defeated the resistance.

Comrade Abu Wadih stressed that the rockets of the occupation have continued despite all of the attacks of the occupier, noting that these are not made in traditional weapons factories but rather through a simple manufacturing process, and that the occupier has attempted to make up for this through fictitious victories and attempts to cover up their crimes in Gaza.

He emphasized that the U.S. and Britain have continued to support and strengthen the occupier through massacre after massacre, providing a sophisticated military arsenal, while the Palestinian people have had to develop all forms and means to resist occupation in the face of this war machine, through sixty years of occupation and displacement. He stated that there will be no need for resistance when our people are liberated and can return to our land and homes. Abu Wadih provided a summary of AAMB operations through the aggression, including launching 177 rockets, 115 mortar shells and more than 15 RPGs, in addition to much work in conjunction with other resistance groups. AAMB fighters also fought in many gun battles with occupation soldiers, sniped occupation soldiers, detonated car bombs and numerous roadside explosive devices targeting enemy military vehicles and tanks.

Comrade Abu Wadih paid tribute to the martyr Comrade Ashraf Banar, who fell in the battle against the occupier.'

from PFLP.PS

Foreign Workers back Strike Wave

2009-02-03T10:56:00.000-08:00

Those who still think that this strike is against foreign workers and is chauvinist etc, are being proved wrong time and time again by the strikers. It must be obvious to those polish workers that this strike is about the undermining of conditions and pay through bringing in foreign Labour. The fact that this strike is growing and is being organised by the rank-and-file is very exciting and encouraging. The 'British Jobs for British Workers' slogan has been played up by opportunists, facsists and some on the Left so much that it s hard to get through all of the lies and confusion to see what this strike is about. It is about workers defending their jobs, conditions and agreements. Who could be against that?

I wonder how long it will take for the BNP to criticise the polish workers?

'600 workers, including hundreds of Polish workers, have walked out from Langage Power Station near Plymouth in solidarity with the wildcat actions sweeping across Britain.

When five hundred site staff had failed to arrive by 10am, the small group of other foreign labourers (mostly Polish) who had been bussed in were sent home by management, deciding it was unsafe for them to work by themselves.

Jerry Pickford, regional officer for Unite South West, said workers had walked out in “general sympathy with what’s happening in the construction industry… all the Polish workers have walked out as well, because this is not an issue against foreign workers.

“This is an issue against foreign employers using foreign workers to stop British workers getting jobs. Once they do that they will try and undermine the terms and conditions of employment in this country.”

It would be illegal for the union to support the strike or even hold a ballot, but workers are taking action off their own backs. Today strike action also spread to the Sellafield nuclear plant, while 400 contractors at Scottish Power’s Longannet power station in Fife (along with 80 workers at an ExxonMobil plant there) and 130 at the Cockenzie Power Station extended their action until Friday.'

From the Commune

Clarity over Strike Wave - Time for some Trots to Apologise.

2009-02-02T07:27:00.000-08:00

The Left has been all over the place over the current strike wave. I back the strikers but I am happy to criticise any nationalist slogans or tendencies. Below is an update from the Socialist Party of England and Wales, who seem to be the only group with implantation in the strike. Workers Power, Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Fight and the Alliance for Zionist Liberty should have a good read, apologise and back the strikers and their demands.

Permanent Revolution has bucked the trend amongst the Trots by putting out an excellent statement which can be read here.

'Update on the spreading strikes by construction engineers in the refinery and power industry

Report by phone from Alistair Tice (Yorkshire Socialist Party) on the mass picket at the Lindsey total refinery North Lincolnshire. Monday 2 February 2009

"The strike committee accepted the main demands of Keith Gibson and John Mckewan to put to the mass meeting today.

Keith is a Socialist Party member and on the strike committee and John is a Socialist Party supporter and victimised worker from the refinery.

The strike committee added an extra demand, calling for John to be reinstated into his job.

The demands were

No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.

All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement.

Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available.

Government and employer investment in proper training / apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers - fight for a future for young people.

All Immigrant labour to be unionised.

Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - including interpreters - and access to Trade Union advice - to promote active integrated Trade Union Members.

Build links with construction trade unions on the continent.

The mass meeting overwhelmingly voted for the demands put to them by the strike committee.

Prior to the meeting Keith and John (and their wives who had came to support the strikers) had seen some BNP members in the car park and told them that they were not welcome, with that the BNP cleared off.

Socialist Party members gave out over 700 leaflets putting our position (which was now the position of the strike committee) and the leaflet was welcomed. One worker (before he read the leaflet) thought that were giving out BNP leaflets and protested that he was not a racist and didn't support the BNP and was relieved when it was explained to him that they were Socialist Party leaflets and supported workers unity.

Keith is part of the negotiating committee that is now in discussions with the management at the refinery. The strike is continuing and looks as if it is spreading throughout the country at the time of writing with Sellafield and Heysham nuclear plants out. Workers at other plants, according to the BBC, have also decided to stay out, these include Grangemouth and Longannon in Scotland. Warrington and Staythope in Newark are also out as well.

The strikes are spreading from fiddlers ferry in Warrington to the Drax power station in Yorkshire."'

From Socialist Party site.

Lindsey Oil Refinery Strike - Confusion reigns!

2009-02-01T13:50:00.000-08:00

Some idiots ,morons and Workers Power have come out and condemned the strike action by construction workers up and down the country as reactionary. A lot of confusion surround the strike and I hope that the below statement by Keith Gibson GMB (pc), who was elected to the unofficial Lindsey Oil Refinery Strike Committee, will shed some light on the strike and dispel some myths that the right wing press and opportunists have spread. I may not be correct on this, Gibson is a member of the Socialist Party of England and Wales, who supposedly have two members on the strike committee. We should be actively discouraging and combatting nationalist slogans in the workers' movement, but we should also seek to understand why construction workers are coming out on strike.

I would also urge readers to take a look at Infantile and Disorderly's post on this, as I share the same position on the strikes and the BNP's involvement.

Some on the Left are calling pickets of Unite offices against the strike action, I hope that they have a read of Gibson's statement and will call off actions against workers defending conditions, pay and the right to work.

'What's really behind the Lindsey Oil Refinery strike
Keith Gibson, Personal Capacity, G.M.B. - elected onto unofficial LOR Strike Committee.

Note: At the time of writing there are plans to lobby Alstom Head
Offices on 5th February in London.

A ninety day redundancy notice had been issued around mid November 2008 at Lindsey Oil Refinery (LOR) for Shaws' workforce.

This meant that by February 17th 2009 a number of Shaws' construction workers (LOR) would be made redundant.

The day before the Christmas holiday Shaws' shop-stewards reported to the men that a part of the contract on LOR's HDS3 plant had been awarded to IREM, an Italian company.

The Stewards explained that Shaws had lost a third of the job to IREM who would be employing their own core Portuguese and Italian workforce numbering 200-300.

Stewards and Union Officials asked to meet with IREM a.s.a.p. after Christmas to clarify the proposal i.e. would IREM employ British labour? Shaws' workforce were told that the IREM workforce would be housed in floating barges in Grimsby docks for the duration of the job, they would be bussed to work in the morning, bussed to and from the barge for lunch.

IREM workers would work from 7.30am - 11.30am and 13.00 - 1700. On Saturdays they would work 4 hours to make up a working week of 44 hours. The normal working week is 44 hours divided by 5 days, from 7.30 -1600 finishing at 1400 on Fridays (most workers work overtime).

Normal breaks include 10 minutes in a morning and a 30 minute dinner break. Stewards were told that IREM workers would be paid the national rate for the job; to date this has not been confirmed.

After Christmas the nominated Shop Stewards entered into negotiations with IREM. Meanwhile, a National Shop Stewards Forum for the construction Industry held a meeting in London to discuss Staythorpe Power Station where the company Alstom were refusing to hire British labour relying on non-union Polish and Spanish workers instead.

It was decided that all Blue Book sites covered by the National Agreement for the Engineering and Construction Industry (NAECI) should send delegations down to Staythorpe to protest against Alstoms' actions.

The workforce on the LOR site sent delegations. Then, on Wednesday 28th January 2009 Shaws' workforce were told by the Stewards that IREM had stated they would not be employing British labour.

The entire LOR workforce, from all subcontracting companies, met and voted unanimously to take immediate unofficial strike action.

The following day over a thousand construction workers from LOR, Conoco and Easington sites descended outside LOR's gate to picket and protest.

This was the spark that ignited the spontaneous unofficial walk outs of our brother construction workers across the length and breadth of Britain.

This worker solidarity is against the 'conscious blacking' of British construction workers by company bosses who refuse to recruit skilled British labour in the U.K.

The workers of LOR, Conoco and Easington did not take strike action against immigrant workers. Our action is rightly aimed against company bosses who attempt to play off one nationality of worker against the other and undermine the NAECI agreement.

THE B.N.P. SHOULD TAKE HEED, U.K. CONTRUCTION WORKERS WILL NOT TOLERATE 'ANOTHER RACIST ATTEMPT' TO SEVER FRATERNAL RELATIONS WITH WORKERS FROM OTHER NATIONS

Demands for Construction Industry:

* No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.
* All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement
* Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled
union members
* Government and employer investment in proper training /
apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers
* All Immigrant labour to be unionised.
* Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - via interpreters
- to give right of access to Trade Union advice - to promote active
integrated Trade Union Members'

More Centrists than you can shake a stick at

2009-01-29T05:57:00.000-08:00

The Convention of the Left recall conference was on the 24 January, it was largely a disappointment. The only major positive to come out of the day was the strengthening of the Gaza solidarity movement. Below are some reports:

Weekly Worker - Convention Party Poopers

Workers Power - Centrists shield reformist leaders

Permanent Revolution - Conference Report

LEAP - Convention of the Left

Socialist Fight (In WW) - Idiots

The Music of Me

2009-01-28T06:43:00.000-08:00

A small taste of what I listen to...

Never Again

2009-01-27T09:48:00.000-08:00

'In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.' Niemöller

Viva Palestina!

2009-01-25T10:19:00.000-08:00

We have been on marches, wrote, read and argued over the politics but one thing we can all agree with and support is direct aid to the people of Palestine.

Respect has launched a campaign to send a convoy of aid in transit vans to Palestine, the Fire Brigades Union has also pledged fire engines, suits and equipment. How's that for internationalism! Click here for more information.

Lenin the Kautskyite?

2009-01-21T06:57:00.000-08:00

Below is a speech given by Lars T Lih to the Left Forum in New York City on March 15, 2008 and can be found online here. Thanks Ben for the heads up on this talk. For those who have not or are not in the process of reading Lars T Lih's 'Lenin Rediscovered' I suggest you get your library to order it in. You may also want to have a read of the Lars T Lih interview in the Weekly Worker.

Lenin and Kautsky: The final chapter

By LARS T. LIH

TODAY I would like to bring to your attention the results of some recent research I have carried out on the topic of Lenin’s relation to Karl Kautsky in the last decade of Lenin’s life, that is, from 1914 to 1924. I will first explain the question I wanted to answer, then describe the way I set out to answer it, and finally summarize the answer I came up with.

Who was Karl Kautsky? From Engels’ death in 1895 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914, he was the most influential Marxist theorist in the world. He was not the official theoretician of the Second International or even the German Social Democratic Party, and he often took a critical or even oppositional attitude to official decisions. He was rather the spokesman of the German party’s Marxist wing and the most influential voice of the party “radicals” until around 1910, when a split developed among the radicals.

What was Lenin’s attitude toward Kautsky? Up to 1909, it was extremely admiring and intense.(1) From 1910 to 1914, Lenin’s attitude became much more wary. After 1914, when Kautsky took a centrist position on the war and refused to split with the majority leadership, Lenin’s attitude became extremely negative, and remained so until the end.

The question arises, how did Lenin after 1914 regard his own earlier admiration for Kautsky? When you change your mind radically about some person or thing, you enter into a period of cognitive dissonance between your present beliefs and your earlier beliefs. There are two different ways to reduce the tension that arises from having two very divergent opinions about the same object. In the case before us, Lenin could decide:

a. Kautsky has changed, that is: Kautsky is now acting a way totally different from the way he acted before. In other words, Kautsky is a renegade.

b. I have changed, that is: I, Lenin, now realize that I was wrong, that my earlier admiration was a mistake. In other words, the scale has fallen from Lenin’s eyes.

These are the two possibilities. Which description of Lenin’s post-1914 attitude is supported by the evidence? Before telling you, I would like to respond to two questions that might have occurred to you. Why is this issue of any interest? Why isn’t the answer obvious?

Why is this issue of any interest?

The main reason for seeking to resolve this issue is that Lenin’s post-1914 attitude toward Kautsky throws some needed light on the larger question of Lenin’s relation to earlier Marxism and to the Second International. Was Lenin an original Marxist theorist who broke with the earlier orthodoxy represented by “Kautskyism”? Or (a somewhat different question) did he ever present himself as such? More specifically, is there a profound gulf between the “mechanistic,” “passive,” and “fatalist” Marxism of Kautsky and the dialectical, activist, revolutionary Marxism of Lenin? The existence of such a gulf is a central assertion of a very influential school of thought that goes back at least to Georg Lukács in 1924.(2)

Adherents of this line of thought have criticized my recent study of Lenin’s What Is to Be Done?, and I confess this criticism was one motive for undertaking the necessary research. My book shows the very strong connections between Lenin’s outlook in 1894–1904 and Kautsky’s authoritative statements (connections which go way beyond the Kautsky citation in What Is to Be Done? so often discussed). Critics who see a gulf between Kautsky and Lenin claim that Lenin’s outlook had already started to diverge fundamentally from “Kautskyism” by 1902. Faced with the abundant evidence that, before the war, Lenin himself insisted on the complete compatibility of his outlook and that of Kautsky, they argue that the break between them was an “unconscious” or “semi-conscious” one. In other words, the break existed, but Lenin himself was not yet aware of it. I responded by posing a dilemma: if this divergence actually existed, either Lenin (one of Kautsky’s most diligent readers) did not understand what he was reading, or Lenin did not understand his own thought.(3)

Several critics responded somewhat as follows: “Look, we all know that Lenin broke decisively with Kautsky in 1914 and we all know that this break led to a root-and-branch rejection of Kautskyism in general. So why is Lih making such heavy weather about the alleged logical difficulties of the earlier situation, when the paths of the two men began to diverge even though Lenin was not yet fully aware of the fact? Lih’s exclusive focus on this earlier period has caused him to ‘bend the stick’ too far in his emphasis on the similarity of the two men’s outlook. By overlooking the later break, he fundamentally distorts the Lenin-Kautsky relationship.”(4)

These critics are justified in challenging me on this point, since I said nothing in my book about Lenin’s later relation to Kautsky. It remains to be seen whether I can meet this challenge.

Why isn’t the answer obvious?

But why is special research needed to dig out the evidence on this question? Lenin’s post-1914 corpus is easily available. Besides, a quick look at the material seems to decide the question, for three reasons:

a. Lenin wrote a lot about Kautsky after 1914. One whole book, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, is specifically devoted to Kautsky-bashing, with the effect, I am told, that some on the hereditary Left grew up thinking Kautsky’s first name was Renegade. Almost all of what Lenin has to say on the subject is an obsessively negative attack on “the most outstanding authority in the Second International, [who] has revealed himself as a first-class hypocrite and a virtuoso in the art of prostituting Marxism.”(5)

b. Lenin denounces not only Kautsky, but something he calls “Kautskyism.” For example, in 1920 he writes, “It is therefore no accident that, throughout the world, Kautskyists [kautskiantsy] are in practical political terms now united with extreme opportunists (through the Second or the yellow International) and with bourgeois governments (through coalition bourgeois governments with participation by socialists).”(6)

c. In State and Revolution (1917), Lenin specifically criticizes some prewar writings by Kautsky that he, Lenin, had previously admired greatly (Social Revolution of 1902 and Road to Power of 1909).

For most readers, these observations settle the question. Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons, all three observations, while true, are misleading:

a. If we sift out, from the general mass of Lenin’s post-1914 references to Kautsky, the ones that specifically mention Kautsky’s prewar writings, a very different picture emerges.

b. Lenin’s post-1914 coinage “Kautskyism” has a very specific meaning. It does not mean “the system of thought or outlook associated with Kautsky”—that is, it does not refer to an “ism” (the Russian term is kautskianstvo). It means something like: “the waffling and compromising typified by Kautsky’s conduct after the outbreak of war.” The label could therefore be applied to many people who did not share Kautsky’s views (for example, Trotsky!).(7) Thus Lenin’s condemnation of “Kautskyism” does not tell us anything about his attitude toward Kautsky’s prewar thought. For example, immediately before the sentence condemning “Kautskyism” that I have just quoted, Lenin says: “In the case of Kautsky and those like him, views like this are a complete renunciation precisely of those revolutionary foundations of Marxism that this writer defended for decades, and, among other subjects, especially in the struggle with socialist opportunism.”(8)

c. The discussion of Kautsky in State and Revolution also contains many strong statements that show Lenin’s continued appreciation of the very writings he criticizes.(9) In any event, the writing of State and Revolution in 1917 causes no appreciable blip in the flow of positive references to Kautsky’s prewar writings.

How well Kautsky wrote, when he was still a Marxist!

To answer the question of interest to us—what was Lenin’s postwar attitude to Kautsky’s prewar writings?—I created the “Kautsky-as-Marxist database,” which seeks to include every citation that reveals Lenin’s attitude toward anything Kautsky wrote, said or did, up to and including 1909. The reason 1909 was chosen as a cutoff date is that Lenin himself made it very explicit that Kautsky’s book Road to Power, published in that year, was his last solid production as a Marxist.(10) The database also includes material on various topics that provide relevant context for the questions that concern us. With these topics, the aim is to be accurately representative rather than comprehensive.(11) The central conclusions that arise out of this material are:

a. There is a lot of material that fits our requirements. Lenin spoke on the matter many times across the whole period. Most items are just passing remarks, but there are more extensive and revealing discussions in 1914, 1917, and 1920.(12) Furthermore, Lenin’s discussions are most often based on a recent re-reading of the Kautsky material in question. The topic was obviously quite important to Lenin.

b. Almost all the references are positive. The central trope used by Lenin is: how well Kautsky wrote back in the old days, when he was still a Marxist. Merely the fact that he labels the Kautsky-of-yore as a Marxist is a strong compliment when compared to what Lenin was calling the contemporary Kautsky. It is abundantly clear that Lenin thinks Kautsky back then was not just a Marxist, but an excellent one.

To give the flavor of Lenin’s remarks, I have chosen representative citations, one from each year from 1914 to 1920:

1914: Lenin gives a detailed exposition of the main arguments of Kautsky’s Road to Power (1909) and comments: “This book, written by the most authoritative writer of the Second International, contains the most complete exposition of the tasks of our times.… This is what German Social Democracy was—or rather, promised to be. This is the Social Democracy that one could and had to respect.”(13)

1915: In an article written in 1915, Kautsky had referred to his own earlier article from 1904. In this article from 1904, Kautsky asserted (in Lenin’s paraphrase): “‘democratic Russia’ will set afire the aspirations of the nations in the east of Europe for freedom.” Lenin says that this original premise is “indisputable,” although the conclusions that Kautsky draws in 1915 from this true premise are indefensible.(14)

1916: Lenin’s group within European socialism during the war was called “Left Zimmerwald” (after a conference held in that town). Lenin brought out the continuity between the ideas of this group and Kautsky: “All of us Left Zimmerwaldians are convinced of what Kautsky also, for example, was convinced of prior to his turnaround in 1914 from Marxism to the defense of chauvinism, namely, that socialist revolution is entirely possible in the very nearest future, ‘any day now,’ as the same Kautsky once expressed it.”(15)

1917: In 1917, only days before the outbreak of the revolution in Russia, Lenin gave a lecture to a Swiss audience about the Russian revolution of 1905, in which he made the following statement: “The higher rose the waves of the movement [in 1905], all the more did the reaction arm itself against the revolution with ever greater energy and decisiveness. The case of the Russian revolution of 1905 confirmed what K. Kautsky wrote in 1902 in his book Social Revolution (by the way, he was then still a revolutionary Marxist, and not a defender of social-patriots and opportunists, as at present). He wrote the following: ‘The coming revolution…is less similar to a sudden rising against the government than to a drawn-out civil war.’ And that’s how it happened! Undoubtedly, that’s the way it will be in the coming European revolution!”(16)

1918: “All that Kautsky the Marxist wrote in Agrarian Question in 1899 on the issue of the means at the disposal of the proletarian state for the gradual transition of small-scale peasants to socialism—all this is forgotten by the renegade Kautsky in 1918.”(17)

1919: When trying to convince an audience of revolutionary Bolsheviks at the Eighth Party Congress of the necessity of a shift in peasant policy, Lenin found it helpful to invoke Kautsky as an authority. He prefaced his remarks by referring to “Kautsky’s book about the agrarian question, written back in the time when Kautsky correctly set forth the teachings of Marx and was acknowledged to be the undisputed authority in this area.”(18)

1920: In Left-Wing Communism, Lenin introduces an extensive passage from Kautsky with these words: “In the days long past, so long ago, when Kautsky was still a Marxist and not a renegade, he approached this question as a historian and foresaw the possibility of the coming of a situation in which the revolutionary nature of the Russian proletariat would become a model for Western Europe. This was in 1902, when Kautsky wrote an article for the revolutionary Iskra entitled ‘Slavs and Revolution.’” After giving the passage, Lenin exclaims: “How well Karl Kautsky wrote eighteen years ago!”(19)

Let me end with a description of Kautsky-as-Marxist based entirely on Lenin’s pronouncements after 1914. All I have removed is the angry irony of “and look at him now!”:

Karl Kautsky was an outstanding Marxist who was the most authoritative theoretician of the Second International and a teacher to a generation of Marxists. His popularization of Das Kapital has canonic status. He was one of the first to refute opportunism in detail (although he hesitated somewhat before launching his attack) and continued to fight energetically against it, asserting that a split would be necessary if opportunism ever became the official tendency of the German party. Marxists of Lenin’s generation learned a dialectical approach to tactics from him. Only vis-à-vis the state do we observe a tendency to restrict himself to general truths and to evade a concrete discussion.

Kautsky was also a reliable guide to the revolutionary developments of the early twentieth century. His magisterial work on the agrarian question is still valid. He correctly diagnosed the national problem (as opposed to Rosa Luxemburg). He insisted that Western Europe was ripe for socialist revolution, and foretold the connection between war and revolution.

Kautsky had a special relation to Russia and to Bolshevism. On the one hand, he himself took great interest in Russian developments, and endorsed the basic Bolshevik view of the 1905 revolution. On the other hand, the Russian revolutionary workers read him eagerly and his writings had greater influence in Russia than anywhere else. This enthusiastic interest in the “latest word” of European Marxism is one of the main reasons for Bolshevism’s later revolutionary prowess.

I emphasize that the description I have just given of Kautsky is Lenin’s post-1914 view of him, as shown by references throughout the period.

c. Many writers argue that there is a major breakthrough or turning point in Lenin’s thought after 1914. The database shows that Lenin himself adopted a rhetorical stance of aggressive unoriginality. Again and again, he asks his readers to listen to what Kautsky—and not only him, but all respected Marxist writers and politicians—were saying before 1914, and to see how shamefully they failed to live up to their own words and actions.(20) Lenin presents himself as remaining staunch for the old truths, as keeping his head when all about him were losing theirs. This means that the dilemma that I set out for those who see an “unconscious” divergence between Lenin and Kautsky in 1902 still stands. Those who stress the fundamental nature of Lenin’s break with the Second International—those who believe that after 1914 Lenin rejected earlier Marxist orthodoxy root and branch—will have to deal with the fact that Lenin himself strongly disagreed.(21)

d. Finally, the most surprising and exciting implication of the database is that ideas that Lenin explicitly associates with Kautsky continue to inform Lenin’s whole definition of the revolutionary situation in which he found himself. We find ourselves confronting the following paradoxical and hard-to-credit conclusion: not only did Lenin fail to repudiate the many ideas he shared with Kautsky, but in many ways these ideas actually became more important to him after 1914. In this talk, I can only point to this possibility, which for many will be literally unbelievable. Yet statements such as the following typical one are hard to interpret otherwise. In January 1915, Lenin wrote the following:

It was none other than Kautsky himself, in a whole series of articles and in his book Road to Power (which came out in 1909), who described with the fullest possible definiteness the basic traits of the approaching third epoch and who pointed out its radical distinctiveness from the second (yesterday’s) epoch. He acknowledged the change in immediate tasks, and, along with this, a change in the conditions and forms of the struggle of contemporary democracy—a change that flows out of the shift in objective historical circumstances.(22)

I began my talk with the question: did Lenin solve his inevitable cognitive dissonance by seeing the post-1914 Kautsky as a renegade (Kautsky changed) or by admitting that the scales fell from his own eyes (Lenin changed). The answer given to us by the database is unambiguous: Lenin felt that Kautsky had changed, not himself. He saw no reason to abandon the outlook he had shared with Kautsky just at the time when, in his eyes, events had justified it completely.
In this short talk, I can only scratch the surface of the database and its implications. The citations I have collected are no doubt more suggestive than conclusive. I look forward to discussion and debate on the implications of this material and on the larger questions of Lenin’s relation to his Marxist forebears.

NOTES

1 Two books that go beyond the observation that Lenin admired Kautsky and examine the content of this relationship are Lars T. Lih, Lenin Rediscovered (Brill 2006), especially for the decade 1894–1904, and Moira Donald, Marxism and Revolution: Karl Kautsky and the Russian Marxists,1900–1924 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), especially for the decade 1904–14.
2 Georg Lukács, Lenin: A Study on the Unity of his Thought (Cambridge, MS: MIT Press, 1971), written in 1924 immediately after Lenin’s death. An excellent recent statement of this line of thought is John Molyneux, Marxism and the Party (London: Pluto Press, 1978).
3 Lih, Lenin Rediscovered, 25.
4 This criticism surfaces in a number of responses that will be published in an upcoming issue of Historical Materialism. John Molyneux’s response, which states this argument very well, can be found on http://johnmolyneux.blogspot.com, November 10, 2006.
5 Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (PSS) (Moscow, 1958–65), 26:263.
6 Lenin, PSS 27:306-7. Foreword to French and German editions of Imperialism.
7 Lenin, PSS 26:323-4.
8 Lenin, PSS 27:306-7.
9 See also Lenin’s 1917 statement about Kautsky’s Social Revolution quoted below.
10 For example, in 1916 Lenin writes: “We ask the reader not to forget that Kautsky up to 1909, up to his excellent book Road to Power, was a foe of opportunism, to whose defense he turned only in 1910–11, and completely decisively only in 1914–16,” (PSS 25:259).
11 The database will be sent to anyone who requests it; my contact address is larslih@yahoo.ca.
12 For more extended discussions, see the 1914 article “Dead chauvinism and living socialism,” State and Revolution (1917) and Left-Wing Communism (1920).
13 Lenin, PSS 26:98:105
14 Lenin, PSS 26:239-40.
15 Lenin, PSS 30:51.
16 Lenin, PSS 30:323. Lenin had just re-read Kautsky’s Social Revolution as part of the research that later resulted in State and Revolution. Despite the critical remarks about this book in State and Revolution, Lenin obviously still greatly admired many of its arguments.
17 Lenin, PSS 37:325, 327.
18 Lenin, PSS 38:193-4.
19 Lenin, PSS 41:4-5. After the summer of 1920, there are very few references to Kautsky, either positive or negative.
20 For example, in 1915, after stating his concept of a revolutionary situation, Lenin comments: “Such are the Marxist views on revolution, views that have been developed many, many times [and] have been accepted as indisputable by all Marxists …” (Lenin, PSS, 26:219).
21 This statement is to be qualified only in the following way: starting in 1919, Lenin began to emphasize the surprises and unexpected turns that world history had in store. A principal reason for this shift was the delay in the international revolution. But the stance of aggressive unoriginality is still evident in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, written in late 1918.
22 Lenin, PSS, 26:143-44 (first published in 1917).

Against the Calm - PFLP on the "Ceasefire"

2009-01-20T15:04:00.000-08:00

'The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine reaffirmed on January 18, 2009 its position on the so-called "ceasefire," stating that the PFLP regards with the utmost respect the decision of our brothers and sisters in the resistance of declaring a one-week ceasefire with the enemy. As we share in the declaration of victory with all of our people today, we want to reaffirm our rejection of any ceasefire and the politics of the so-called "calm".

We have continually opposed the politics of "calm," because it presents an opportunity and yet another false justification for Israel to attack our people and increases the pressure on the resistance from all of the forces in the enemy camp - not only Israel's military assaults, but also the political pressure and attacks from Arab regimes, the European Union, the United States and the so-called "Quartet." The politics of "calm" becomes a trap for the resistance that we should always seek to avoid, since occupation itself is an act of aggression. Our people have the right to resist, as an occupied people, and while the resistance can make tactical decisions about how to wage that struggle, we can never allow that decision and determination to become a weapon in the hands of our enemies.

Elements of the enemy ground forces remain in Gaza and the siege has not been ended, nor have the crossings, particularly Rafah crossing, been opened. The enemy did not declare the end of its naval siege and their air force continues to invade our skies, in an attempt to create fear and terror among our people who have given over 1300 martyrs in the past 3 weeks, as well as over 5000 wounded, amid the destruction of over 4000 homes, entire neighborhoods, and much of our civil infrastructure in Gaza. The borders have not been opened, and at all crossings, particularly the Rafah crossing, goods intended for our people are waiting for safe and secure passage.

The enemy is trying to achieve by political means what it could not achieve by military means. It failed, despite its scorched-earth tactics and its massacres of our people, to eliminate our resistance or crush the steadfastness of our people. Now, it is trying to cover its failure with the Livni-Rice agreement with the United States - an agreement that is not worth the paper it is written on. The PFLP is making clear with this position that our people and our resistance will not give up our rights or our arms, and that, in fact, this latest aggression is only going to strengthen our determination to build our resistance and the capabilities of our forces.

In addition, the summit of Sharm el-Sheikh between the Europeans and some Arab regimes represents a threat to the entire Arab world and is a symbol of an attempt to revive colonialism in the Arab world. "Monitoring" the Egyptian-Palestinian borders only means that there is no sovereignty in the Arab world, neither in Egypt nor in Gaza, and that these colonial powers and their forces are returning to our region. Sovereignty is a critical question and differentiates a free people and nation from one that is under the boots of colonialism and occupation. The use of the term "smuggling of weapons" is yet another method of turning our national cause into a "security question" and is an attempt to make the weapons of the resistance of our occupied people illegitimate. The right of a people under occupation to resist through all means, including armed struggle, is fundamental and inviolable, and we will not allow our rights to be liquidated under the slogan of "security" or "stability."

The PFLP has engaged in the battlefield with our brothers and sisters in all organizations of the resistance from the beginning of the aggression on December 27, 2008. We have shared in this battlefield and we continue to share the bread and bullets in order to fight our common vicious Zionist enemy and those who back our enemy. The PFLP was the first to launch a missile against the enemy forces in this aggression and we will be on the front lines chasing the enemy as it retreats from the last centimeter of the Gaza Strip.

Glory to the martyrs! Victory to resistance! Long live the Palestinian people and the Arab nation! Long live international struggle and solidarity!'

From PFLP.PS

The broadest possible movement?

2009-01-19T07:21:00.000-08:00

When you go to anti-war demonstrations you will no doubt see a variety of flags, placards and banners. The majority will be the usual dull slogans that the bigger factions on the Left will come up with, others will be funny, some will be downright stupid and others will provoke anger and hatred from inside and outside the movement. I have witnessed what happens when you raise slogans on a demonstration that some people disagree with, Hands Off the People of Iran, raise slogans which are against imperialism first and foremost, but also against the Islamic Republic. We support the revolutionary and democratic movements in Iran against the regime and we have no problems about raising this in the anti war movement even in the face of bureaucratic and stalinoid opposition.

The Alliance for Workers' Liberty, a group that apologises for imperialism and zionism. They are quite a unique creature on the Left. Their members have been attacked at Gaza demonstrations in London and Sheffield. In London one of their members waved an Israeli flag at a demo outside the Israeli embassy, clearly not the smartest thing to do. He was ejected from the demonstration unsurprisingly and taken away by the police. In Sheffield a member of the AWL carried a placard which said 'No to IDF, No to Hamas'. For this they were attacked and had their placard taken and ripped up by a thuggish PSC organiser. This is clearly unacceptable in the movement, the SWP and the soft left spend all their time arguing for the broadest possible anti war movement, yet when slogans which they disgaree with or can't put down to younthful anger appear they are censored immediately.

I have no time for the AWL and their politics, however, it is outrageous that a small placard saying 'No to IDF, No to Hamas' should be removed from a demonstration. The leaders of the anti war movement allow everything from Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamist flags, placards and slogans, will organise demonstrations with groups that are homophobic, mysogynist and anti working class to build the broadest possible movement.

If we are to have a broad anti war movement then we have to expect slogans that we may not agree with, we may be marching next to groups we consider reactionary and we may have to put up with the Sparts defending North Korea, the CPGB-ML defending Mugabe and carrying a picture of Stalin and we will also have to put up with the AWL and their ridiculous take on imperialism and zionism. What we should not have to put up with, is thuggery and political censorship in the movement.

PFLP declare ceasefire a defeat for Israel

2009-01-18T04:41:00.000-08:00

The bombardment of Gaza has ended, for now at least. It look like the Israeli's will go back to strangling the Gaza strip after being unable to defeat Hamas and other resistance factions. Hamas has also called a ceasefire which is to be respected by all resistance factions as long as Israeli troops are withdrawn within the week. Below is the PFLP statement on the unilateral ceasefire by Israel.

'The "ceasefire" speech by Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert on January 17, 2009 is a declaration of defeat, said the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in a press statement, noting that halting the airstrikes and keeping the Israeli occupation army troops on the ground is not a "ceasefire" and stating that the occupation forces will be a continual target for the resistance so long as they are in Gaza.

Comrade Dr. Maher al-Taher, member of the Political Bureau of the PFLP and leader of its branch in exile, said in an interview with Al-Jazeera that "the criminal Olmert's speech is a speech of defeat, and is a great victory for the resistance and for the steadfastness of our people in the Gaza Strip." He stressed that this is a historical achievement for the Palestinian people and called for building upon this victory for the next stage of fighting back against the occupier.

Comrade Taher said, the enemy occupied our land in six days in 1967, but today they fail to occupy a corner of Gaza City, and this is a new stage and a tribute to the steadfastness of our people and our resistance. We must draw lessons from these accomplishments - that our clear political line and our national unity can be achieved on the basis of the continuation of the resistance and a political strategy that ends all reliance on the United States, Annapolis, the roadmap and Oslo, and all illegitimate and empty agreements with the occupation. Our people instead need a clear strategy based on our Palestinian national principles as raised by Palestinian prisoners in their national reconciliation document.

He noted further that the building of the massive of international popular solidarity and support for the Palestinian people, particularly as the brutality and crimes of the occupation has been revealed, has been a major force in support of our people, and that the people of the world are rejecting the occupier, rejecting Zionism, and rejecting this system as unacceptable, illegitimate and criminal.

Comrade Taher concluded by saying that the steadfastness of our people in Gaza sent a clear message to the leaders of Zionist terrorism, the official Arab regimes and the entire world that the will of our people has not been broken, and it cannot be defeated nor will it abandon the resistance under any circumstances.

The PFLP also condemned the so-called "memorandum of understanding" between the U.S. and Israel, saying that the occupier is only talking to itself, and that this is an "agreement" between strategic partners in the enemy camp. It stated further that this agreement is a new aggression against the Palestinian and Arab peoples, which aims to deny their right to defend themselves and resist occupation and aggression, and furthermore, to deny Arab sovereignty over our own borders and our own land.'

from PFLP.PS

The prophetic Tony Cliff

2009-01-15T17:23:00.000-08:00

Yes, beleive your eyes, this is a post which is supportive of Tony Cliff, I hope the shock was not too bad.

As I was having a look through recent editions to MIA over the last few months, I came across, what can only be described as a prophetic work by the founder of the International Socialist tendency, Yigael Gluckstein better known as Tony Cliff. The article was written in 1947 as British imperialism was being superseded by the USA and points out key areas of control in the middle east that the imperialist hegemenon would want to monopolise and control. The article is called 'The World Struggle for Oil'.

'For American Imperialism Middle East oil can be one of the most important fields of investment. The great development of American capitalism has deepened manyfold the contradictions within it, and the capitalists will try to overcome them by imperialist expansion on a terrific scale.'

How can anyone say that Cliff was wrong today? We only have to look at the military adventures of the imperialist powers in the Middle East and in Africa with increasing vigour and barbarity.

'The struggle for oil reflects the aims of all the great powers. In their desire to dominate the sources of this important raw material which offers new prospects of enormous profits and wealth to the magnates of Anglo-American imperialism, the seeds of a new world war will be sown. It is oil which is determining the importance of the Middle East in the calculations of all the great powers. And the wealth which will be gained will not benefit the peoples of the Middle East or the masses of the Western powers. It can only lead to the further enslavement of the Arab peoples. Plot and counter-plot, strategic and political maneuvers round this area will be endless. A Socialist Federation of the Middle East in a Socialist World would be the only means of utilizing the tremendous resources of the Middle Fast, as of the world, for the enrichment and benefit of all.'

Cliff also comes up with the right slogans that Communists should raise with regards the Middle East, that is for a Socialist Federation of the Middle East. I wish SWP banners and placards had such slogans on anti war demonstrations, I would be inclined to carry such a placard! The text is brilliant, even if it is short, it points correctly to the future battles the imperialist powers have and continue to fight.

Marching for Gaza - WW 752

2009-01-15T09:15:00.000-08:00

With over 1,000 now dead in Gaza, demonstrations have been taking place across the world in protest against the massacre. On Saturday January 10 more than 100,000 marched from Hyde Park, past the Israeli embassy, to Kensington Palace Gardens. The police and media systematically downplayed the numbers - the first police ‘estimate’ was a patently absurd 12,000.

The demonstration was vibrant and angry, with perhaps a majority consisting of young people from schools, colleges and universities across the country. They included many thousands of young Muslims who chanted anti-war and pro-Palestinian slogans. There was a sizeable contingent of anti-Zionist Jews, as well as the 57 varieties of the British left selling their papers. CPGB comrades sold books, T shirts, badges and other material, including over 100 Weekly Workers, and helped distribute a Hands Off the People of Iran leaflet condemning the Israeli attacks and linking them to the situation in Iran and the Middle East as a whole.

Saturday saw the rejuvenation of the anti-war movement in a big way - and new generation of youth coming into militant politics.

Outside the road that led to the Israeli embassy a small but growing body of demonstrators, not least those committed to, or influenced by, militant Islam, stopped and began burning American and Israeli flags. Sticks, fireworks and red paint were thrown. Others hurled shoes in the now famous gesture of contempt. The riot police lashed out with batons causing many injuries. Demonstrators fought back. For a time the police seemed to have lost control. But it was a set piece and they were bound to win. Police cameramen took pictures in order to single out those who were to be later arrested.

The police must surely have known exactly what was going to happen and they meticulously planned accordingly. And they got the TV and newspaper pictures the British state wanted. In the subsequent fighting, one copper was knocked unconscious, whilst two received facial injuries.

On our side STWC stewards valiantly tried to keep the vast demonstration moving despite the growing bottleneck which took up half the width of Kensington High Street. The sheer crush of people led to several marchers having to be taken to hospital, including a 10-year-old child. But why exactly did the STWC leadership push for this route? In effect they were courting the danger of a small minority triggering a full-scale police riot. As it was, there was a police trap.

As the demonstration finished and people started making their way back to buses and the tube, the police completely cordoned off those remaining outside the embassy. They had to endure sub-zero temperatures as the police only allowed out a trickle of people after taking their details. All were said to be suspected of “public order offences” and “criminal damage”.

We are all Palestinians

A relatively large number of people on the demonstration carried Hamas or other Islamist placards and banners. There was some shouting of Allahu akbar, but from what I can gather there were no anti-semitic slogans shouted. Though Weyman Bennett of the SWP’s central committee was heard demanding that Israeli Jews “should go back to where they came from … New York or wherever”.

Of course, identifying with Hamas or any section of the resistance movement is understandable - in Gaza they are virtually the only people offering some kind of defence against the Zionists. The people of Palestine elected Hamas because of its military prowess and refusal to submit to a life under the Israeli jackboot. However, Hamas is a vile, anti-democratic and reactionary force that has no positive solution for the Palestinian or Israeli people. Communists must explain clearly why Hamas cannot bring freedom to Palestine. We should be working to win the new layers of youth, which are untainted by the defeats of the last anti-war upsurge, to become working class fighters.

The fact that a popular chant was not ‘We are all Hamas’ (it was the Socialist Workers Party which had led the chanting of ‘We are all Hezbollah’ at the time of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006), but ‘We are all Palestinians’, was positive. This was a slogan that expressed solidarity, not with some reactionary grouping, but with an oppressed people.

Unfortunately, when those from the left, including Lindsey German (SWP) and Andrew Murray (Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain), took to the platform at the beginning and end of the demonstration, they did not put forward a working class analysis and solution, and instead essentially parroted the liberal left.

The speeches as a whole were as predictable as ever. George Galloway called on demonstrators to move into action against those who sell Israeli products (boycotts were a common theme from the platform) and proclaimed ‘Victory to the resistance!’ He also urged people to force their MPs to “turn parliament into a battleground”. Fellow Respect member Yvonne Ridley - like Galloway a regular on the Tehran mouthpiece, Press TV - declared that she would have “voted Hamas back into power” if she were in Palestine. There was, however, criticism of reactionary arab regimes, not least Egypt.

Other speakers included Lauren Booth (Tony Blair’s sister-in-law), Jeremy Corbyn MP, Tariq Ali, Craig Murray (former ambassador to Uzbekistan), Seamus Milne and Bianca Jagger. There were many calls for boycotts, war crime tribunals, respect for international law and an immediate ceasefire, as the lords, liberals and pop stars easily outnumbered the left. As in 2003, there was a Liberal Democrat speaker too.

The following day, Zionists and their supporters came out onto the streets of London and Manchester. Around 4,000 demonstrated in London and 700 in Manchester - a tiny fraction of the numbers demonstrating for Gaza, although you would not know it from media reports.

The pressure is now on to build and sustain the movement. This coming weekend will see local actions up and down the UK, as well as a long string of public meetings. Emerging from this movement are solidarity groups which are planning and organising actions - this may revitalise local STWC branches.

Saturday January 10 showed that many tens of thousands of people are ready to come out onto the streets against war and imperialism. The strength and militancy of the demonstrations is to be welcomed and encouraged. But this movement must not be dissipated again either by the SWP’s grand old Duke of York ‘strategy’ or attempts to channel it into a dead-end, ‘all things to all people’, Respect-type party.

The left must consistently promote a working class programme for extreme democracy to challenge the UK state - the most reliable ally of the US warmongers and shamefaced supporter of Zionist slaughter.

From issue 752 of the 'Weekly Worker'

Gaza resistance fighting on

2009-01-14T05:12:00.000-08:00

The brave resistance in Gaza and Palestine is still managing to fight on despite Israeli military barbarity. In an article in the NY Times Israeli intelligence has said that Hamas is not crippled and can still launch rockets. This is after 13 days of heavy bombardment from air, sea and land. The resistance has managed to survive the bombardment, what has taken a beating is the civic infrastructure, that is government buildings and offices of resistance factions.

If they can't knock out Hamas and the other resistance groups through heavy bombardment then the so called 'Phase III' of operation cast lead could be implemented, which is a full scale and sustained invasion of the Gaza strip to crush the resistance. If this goes ahead, casualties will dramatically increase and the IDF will also face a steady stream of dead. This will only undermine the support of the war in the Israeli population. If they enter, lets hope that Gaza will be a graveyard for IDF soldiers as comrade Sa'adat has called for.

Zionists ban Arab Political Parties

2009-01-12T11:28:00.001-08:00

Zionist legislators have backed proposals by the far right to ban Arab parties from standing in the upcoming elections. Israeli Arabs live as second class citizens within Israel and have long struggled to maintain the small political, religous and social rights they have. It is a clear sign that the massacre in Gaza is part of a wider plan to strengthen the far right in Israel and crush internal resistance. See Haaretz article here.

Israel's Version of a Palestinian Terrorist

2009-01-09T09:04:00.000-08:00

March for Gaza

2009-01-06T12:26:00.000-08:00

PFLP Defiant in Face of Invasion

2009-01-04T05:59:00.000-08:00

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine reported on January 3, 2009 that the criminal and murderous Israeli massacres against our people in Gaza are continuing by land, sea, and air. 13 Palestinians were martyred and dozens more injured as the Israeli occupation forces assaulted a mosque in Beit Lahiya that was filled with worshipers.

This was the ninth mosque targeted by the Israeli occupiers in their week of assaults against our Palestinian people in Gaza. Palestinian medical personnel reported that 20 martyred Palestinians had come to Al-Shifa hospital, and many more wounded, the majority of which were women and children.

Despite the ongoing criminal attacks against our Palestinian people, the steadfastness, strength and resilience of our people continues to inspire and mobilize the resistance as it continues to fight the occupation forces and obtain casualties. The occupation forces have not been successful in killing our fighters and the forces of the Palestinian resistance continue to launch missiles and steadfastly fight their ground attacks, tanks and invading soldiers.

The Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, the armed wing of the PFLP, reported that it fired missiles and 60mm mortars at invading Israeli forces, wounding soldiers and causing enemy casualties, near the Karni crossing. In addition, AAMB launched rockets at the Western Naqab, Asqelan and Netivot, as confirmed by enemy media. AAMB stated that they will emerge from the rubble in Gaza and continue to fight, and confirmed that all resistance groups are united and committed and completely ready to confront the ground occupation with their weapons and their bodies.

The PFLP stated further that despite the atrocities committed against our people, the resistance will continue to struggle and to fight back and to achieve victory, and that the enemy's brutality will not achieve its ends.

from PFLP.PS

Throw them Back!

2009-01-03T12:05:00.001-08:00

Israeli ground troops have now entered Gaza after a day of heavy shelling and bombing. The death toll is expected to increase dramatically throughout any full scale occupation, not just through direct killings, but through lack of medical supplies, electicity shortages and lack of food stuffs. Hamas has boasted that it will be a disaster for the invaders. Lets hope so.

In Britain and around the world demonstrations have took place. The Manchester demonstration attracted around 3000 people. The demo was vibrant and varied with hundred of young people coming to a demonstration for the first time.

New Year, New Parties, New Splits and New Opportunities?

2009-01-01T04:29:00.000-08:00

The Year is starting as the last one finished, a bloodbath in Gaza. Demonstrations have sprung up across the world. This weekend Britain will probably be seeing big demonstrations in London and Manchester. You can see an up to date set of actions at stopwar.org.uk. I will be at the Manchester demo and i will try and get pictures and a report up on this blog and indymedia.

This year the left will have to deal with the economic crisis and try and put something forward apart from warmed up labourism, populist nonsense, Soft Stalinism and shouting at bankers. That something that we need to be putting forward is Marxism, surely when the capitalism is in chaos it is easier to win the argument that it is time for something else, and that something else should be socialism. Copies of Marx's works have been flying off the shelves, is it not a good time to drop the disguises and the fronts and come out as who we are, Marxists? In the new year members of the CPGB and others will be launching an Appeal for Marxism, which in a small way will seek to bring together Marxists from across Europe who insist that it is time for a Marxist party. Not red-green coalitions, not new labour parties and not united fronts of special kind. However, there are upcoming events that do offer new possibilities for Marxists.

In nine days trade unionists from all over the country will be meeting in London to discuss working class political representation, the conference has been called by the RMT. The conference will be addressed by the Screw's union General Secretary Brian Caton, Bob Crow (RMT), John McDonnell MP, Professor Mary Davis and the ever present, everything to everyone, Mark 'i sold out your pensions' Serwotka (PCS). It is good to see the unions that are not affiliated to the Labour Party moving to back working class candidates, I doubt we will see any new party born out of this and I am hoping the RMT does not go down the same road as the PCS. The problem facing the working class, is not so much a problem of representation. The problem is having no independent party and no independent leadership. This can only be solved by forming a new party, a party which is based on a commitment to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. This conference and the discussions which will follow in the advanced sections of the working class will give space for revolutionaries to try and win the arguments and bring in a greater number people into the revolutionary milieu.

The Convention of The Left recall conference will be held on 24th January in Manchester. After all the big speeches and patting on the back, hopefully the conference can be used to coordinate some defensive actions during the recession and put energy into the anti war movement. The conference will also give space to put forward Marxism as opposed the left reformism that was in abundance at the original conference. I wrote two articles for the Weekly Worker on the Convention which can be found here and here.

On the home front, Communist Students will be off to Manchester to hold a two day conference in February. The conference will be used to clarify our politics, sharpen our programme, assess last year's work and to plan a year of action, agitation and education. There will also be a special CPGB conference this year to discuss and agree a new Draft Programme.

Hands Off the People of Iran (HOPI) will be launching a new campaign called 'Smash the Sanctions'. Sanctions have to be seen as a prelude or a form of soft war against Iran. It is important that we try and break these sanctions, it is the working class that is suffering under these snactions not just through unemployment and poverty but the affect it has on medical supplies and fuel. There will be meetings up and down the country and you can also expect another weekend school some time in the year.

February will also offer the most interesting conference of the year. The LCR will disapear and the Nouveau parti anticapitaliste (NPA) will be born. Unlike the half baked unity projects in the UK, it will be a party. Not a coalition. It will be revolutionary anti capitalist. Not reformist. Hopefully it will also go against the coalitionist politics that led to the collapse of Rifondazione and a split in the Brazilian Workers' Party. The reason why the NPA is causing such interest is because of the way it has bucked the trend in the Left from forming red-green coalitions or reformist formations. It has to be seen as a move away from the dead end politics the Left has pursued and endured since Seattle. A new multi tendency party in France will give massive scope for Marxists to intervene effectively in the class struggle but also to get a bigger audience to win to Marxism.

We then have possibly the biggest mobilisation in the UK this year. The G20 circus is coming to the UK on 2nd April. As expected Stop the War has called a demo and with the ongoing barbarity in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan we can expect to see a decent turn out. Workers' organisations will also be there in force as the economic crisis, growing unemployment and savage attacks on benefits will set workers into action.

There will also be a European wide demonstration against the 50th anniversary of NATO which will be held in Strasbourg from 2nd to the 5th April. A call out signed by hundreds of organisations can be found here. At both of these mobilisations, communists must be ready to win new supporters to Marxism, we should also be ready to defend these demonstrations from police attacks and sanctions. HOPI will be out in force at these demonstrations.

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is experiencing its biggest existential threat since the 70's. Cliff's heirs are at each others throats after a collapse in membership, a collapse in the united front strategy and a growing despair at internal party democracy, discussion and activity. The fight came not from the rank and file as was hoped by many on the Left, but by a fight in the Pantheon, with poor John Rees being demoted to a mere mortal. This spat and division has allowed the best round of discussion and criticism in the party for a very long time. Neil Davidsons article in IB3 is particularly scathing, parroting many of the criticisms the Left has thrown at the SWP over the last period. Will this be the year that the SWP grows up and reaches out? A split is definately on the cards, the Rees-German faction will most likely be smashed at the conference this month. It is all up in the air at the moment, it does not seem that either section of the leadership has a clear way forward. On a very basic level it seems that that the Smith-Callinicos-Harman faction want to go back to the SWP's pre united front strategy whilst the Rees-German lot want to put the 'People before Profit' charter at the centre of party work whilst hanging on to building up fronts and deluding themselves and the membership that they are building the united front.

I am sure a lot more will be going on this year, and it will be a year full of opportunites and tests for the Left. Is the Left up to the job? Not in it's current state. It is promising to see the left uniting around certain actions, but this is no replacement for actual unity. It will not give the working class the clear leadership and organisational tools that are needed to weather the storm and move onto the offensive. This has to be the year that the fight for Marxist unity gains momentum.

Save Gaza!

2008-12-31T11:16:00.000-08:00

The massacre of Gaza is looking to be long term affair. The pictures of APC's, Tanks and armoured vehicles massing just outside of Gaza only give more weight to the fears that Israel is going to re-occupy the Gaza strip to remove Hamas once and for all. Olmert has said that the bombardment is just "the first in several stages", what could the next stages be apart from invasion?

Communist Students has released this statement

Free Palestine - Smash the Siege!

Israel, backed and armed by the imperialist powers, has launched a barbaric attack on the Gaza strip. The death count is constantly rising, as Israel turns its full military might on the besieged population. Medical supplies are diminishing by the hour with little chance of supplies entering Gaza any time soon, as the cowardly Egyptian government is helping to maintain the blockade of the Gaza strip. The number of dead is likely to increase dramatically over the next few days. The attack is growing in size and scope, which many see as a prelude to a full-scale invasion to remove Hamas once and for all.

Communist Students stands shoulder to shoulder with the Palestinian people. They have every right to defend themselves from the army of the Zionist state. We urge people to join the demonstrations that are taking place in cities and towns across the world.

Communist Students Executive.

Demonstrations have been called across the UK. Check with local Stop the War groups on what actions they are taking. Stop the War Coalition and others have called a demonstration in central London on Saturday 3rd January. Click Here for details.

A demonstration will also be taking place in Manchester on the same day. Click here for details.

The Killing of Gaza

2008-12-28T12:49:00.000-08:00

The people in Gaza are suffering their greatest massacre for many years. After a siege which has saw many die through lack of drugs, electricity, water and being held up at IDF checkpoints the IDF has pummeled the Gaza strip with massive bombs and artillery barrages. At the time of writing the death toll stands at 280 men, women and children.

Israel and it's imperialist sponsors have excused this mass murder by trying to blame Hamas, which it has been unable to crush and remove from power. By electing Hamas, the Gazan population has been under siege ever since.

Below is the PFLP statement on the massacre.

Over 270 killed in Gaza and hundreds have been wounded in a series of massacres and crimes committed by the Zionist occupier against the Palestinian people in Gaza on December 27, 2008. The occupier shot dozens of missiles from Apache helicopters and F-16 planes at dozens of Gaza government buildings, directly in the middle of heavily populated residential neighborhoods and simultaneously with teachers and students returning to school.

Demonstrations have broken out throughout the West Bank and the Arab world in protest and outrage at the brutality and the nature of these massive crimes.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine issued a statement calling for the broadest resistance to meet and confront this aggression against the Palestinian people and to respond to these massacres, and for the unity of the resistance, and the unity of the Palestinian people, to greet the occupier with resistance, strength and steadfastness despite his brutal crimes. The statement stressed the urgent need for national unity immediately to confront the crimes against our people and to greet the occupier and its brutality with tremendous and unified resistance that is capable of shaking its foundations.

The PFLP statement further called upon all resistance forces to come together now and establish unified resistance front to coordinate and take up the challenge of these attacks against our people. It pointed to the responsibility of the United States for these attacks, as a strategic partner of the occupier, working hand in hand with its massacres and crimes against the Palestinian people, and as the source of the arms used by the occupier against our people. It also pointed to the complicity of the Arab regimes in these crimes, particularly the Egyptian regime, for its ongoing and active participation in the blockade and siege of the Palestinian people in Gaza and its meetings and discussions with the occupier about its plans for Gaza. These massacres are taking place because of Arab and international silence and active complicity.

The PFLP further called for the immediate end to any and all negotiations with this brutal occupier who plans massacres against our people and stated that if he will not end the negotiations immediately, Abu Mazen must resign now. The nature of the Zionist enemy and its dedication to the eradication of the Palestinian people is laid bare and clear by this series of attacks, calculated to cause maximum damage and human cost. For the past sixty years, there is an unbroken history of massacres and crimes against our people and this massacre today is yet one more expression of the nature of the illegitimate colonial state that has implanted itself on Palestinian land and continues to live on U.S. support through massacres and crimes against the Palestinian people.

The statement concluded by calling upon all of its fighters and military branches to take the strongest actions and to resist the occupation and its massacres by all methods and forms of action and resistance, and by calling for the broadest solidarity on Arab and international levels, for people to come into the streets, demonstrate, march, and take action to declare that these massacres and crimes are unacceptable, that the Arab people and the world are with Palestine and the Palestinian people, and that they will not allow these crimes to continue nor for the Arab regimes and international regimes to be silently complicity or actively involved in the occupation's crimes.

The Palestinian people will greet these massacres with steadfastness, strength, unity and resistance and all of the crimes, massacres, targeting of civilians, residential neighborhoods, and schoolchildren and teachers will do nothing to crush the resistance of our people, the statement said, it will only ensure Palestinian unity in the face of this brutality which makes clear the true face of the occupier to the world.
From PFLP.PS

SWP: Gross misconduct! Defend Adrian Swain!

2008-12-19T04:08:00.000-08:00

If you think the war inside the SWP is interesting to watch unfold over on Socialist Unity and in the pages of the Weekly Worker, what you probably have not read is the dismissal of Adrian Swain, a long time union militant and member of the Permanent Revolution group. The comrade was dismissed for ‘gross misconduct’, which usually covers sexual assault, physical assault etc. Adrian’s crime was to wear trainers to school. It probably had more to do with him being a trade union militant in one of the best organised schools in London.

What was the SWP’s role in all of this? They refused to back Adrian against the management and smashed the attempt to forge a united campaign against his victimisation.

The SWP should make a u-turn and fully back Adrian, imagine if comrades refused to back an SWP member from victimisation. Accusations of sectarianism would rife.

The comrade is now looking at no job, no severance pay and a mark on his record which will make it harder for him to get work.

For further reading go to:

Adrian Swain sacked for daring to defy imposed dress code!

NUT rep victimised over dress code challenge

Assessing, debating and forward planning

2008-12-19T03:43:00.000-08:00

On Saturday December 13 some 70 members and supporters of Hands Off the People of Iran met in London for the campaign’s second annual conference. Chris Strafford reports

Our activists come together to critically assess both shortcomings and achievements and to plan for the coming year in light of political and economic developments. Mark Fischer (chair) opened the conference by explaining that Hopi has done well over the last year but it is very necessary to “up our game”. He wanted to do this in part by using the conference to strengthen the steering committee.

Comrade Fischer listed the previous year’s activities. Hopi has held over 30 meetings up and down the country, a successful weekend school, press conferences with Iranian students, going to TUC congress and most significantly the growth of affiliates, with the Labour Representation Committee, Public and Commercial Services union and Aslef, the train drivers’ union, backing Hopi. The website also came under scrutiny for being hard to update and to navigate. The website is now being overhauled to make it more dynamic and workable (look out for video reports of the 2008 conference for instance).

Comrade Fischer also said that it is important to sort out national material, as we are “only scratching the surface” of the support that Hopi could tap into. He ended his review of the year by stating that our political profile has grown within the workers’ movement and within Iran itself. When Hopi politics have been taken to conferences and meetings we have in general received overwhelming support. Our politics are “common sense for working class activists”. In Iran itself Hopi slogans are being frequently used. Comrades in Iran are delighted to receive support on such a principled basis.

No illusions in Obama

Yassamine Mather (CPGB), member of Hopi’s steering committee, gave an overview of the world situation and the situation in Iran. Comrade Mather was adamant that the “threat of war has not and will not diminish” and that it is important to keep building the movement against an Israeli or a US strike on Iran. This was something of an opening salvo against those who believe that the election of Obama has somehow diminished the threat of war. Certainly with the economic crisis the chances are that imperialism will become more belligerent over the next period - not less, as comrades from Permanent Revolution argued.

Comrade Mather also stressed that nuclear proliferation was not the cause of the threats against Iran. There are those in the workers’ movement who are using the nuclear question to excuse Israeli aggression.

Torab Saleth (Workers Left Unity Iran), moving motion 1, ‘The political situation, war and imperialism’ said that it is only through our approach can we build the anti-war movement and that it is not about whether or not we need a broad movement. Hopi, he said, has shown over the last year that our politics can draw in a broad spectrum of supporters. If the imperialists manage to stage a velvet revolution it would lead to “another 20 years of semi-fascist dictatorship”. Comrade Saleth also outlined the dangers facing the anti- war movement and democratic forces inside Iran (for the text of his speech see pages 8 and 9).

The debate over whether the election of Obama, the economic crisis and the collapse in world oil prices have significantly affected the likelihood of military action against Iran was the most contentious political issue at this year’s conference. Stuart King (PR and Hopi steering committee) wanted to amend the motion to state that the threat of war against Iran has decreased and that it is solidarity work and building up a campaign against sanctions which should be the main area of work over the next period.

The debate that followed on this was very one-sided with only three comrades speaking in favour of the amendment. A large majority were far from convinced that the threat against Iran has decreased, let alone that Hopi should go into battle with such a statement. Anne McShane (Hopi Ireland) urged conference to look at the appointments made by Obama since he was elected. They show we can expect more of the same. It would be tactically inept for Hopi to state publicly that the threat against Iran has somehow decreased. No one has a crystal ball and can see exactly what is going to happen.

The amendment was heavily defeated, whilst the main motion was passed overwhelmingly. This is a debate that should go on, and is going on throughout the Middle East. Illusions in Obama will evaporate sooner or later, so it is the movement that got him elected that we should look to and encourage them to fight for what they elected him to do.

Time for a new movement?

The state of the anti-war movement in Britain is pitiful: branches are defunct and thousands of activists have drifted away. On top of this, the STWC leadership is dominated by the minority faction in the Socialist Workers Party and the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain. In other words, a clique that is actually thoroughly unrepresentative of the real movement.

No-one on the left can deny the decline of the STWC or its cowardice when it comes to Iran. So what to do? Mike Martin (Hopi Sheffield) moved motion 2, which basically argued for Hopi to take the lead in reviving the anti-war movement by going around STWC. There was sympathy for the motivation but strong doubt about the politics. Hopi should work within the STWC, not set itself up as an alternative. Comrades said that it was important to build and participate in the STWC and get the ban on Hopi lifted as soon as possible. Comrade Martin’s motion was clearly defeated.

Student solidarity

Conference was addressed by Iranian student leader Behrooz Karimizadeh (Students for Freedom and Equality) on the history of the student movement and its current composition and course.

The students’ movement in Iran had a long history of opposing the state - whether the state of the shah or the current state which was born out of the post-1979 counterrevolution. The student movement has also vacillated throughout its existence between reform and revolution. However, illusions in the reformist faction were overcome after the suppression and murders carried out by the reformists in 1999.

The current movement has less illusions in imperialism as well. One only has to look at the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan to see that US bombs will not bring freedom. The current generation of students in Iran is more leftwing and has a leadership which is increasingly composed of Marxists.

Comrade Karimizadeh stressed that this movement acts in opposition both to imperialism and to the Iranian theocratic regime. The crisis that is gripping the world is being exacerbated by sanctions in Iran. Inflation is currently at 30% and has left Iran at the mercy of the IMF and a new wave of neoliberal shock treatments. He also explained how it is important to give support to the third player in Iran: that is, the working class and the democratic movements. He ended by declaring that our “internationalist duty must take precedence over everything else”. This was met with cheers. During the discussion afterwards Behrooz described the links between the students‘, workers’ and the women’s movements and the collapse of Islam as a political trend among students.

Workers’ movement

Hopi has won the backing of the Public and Commercial Survices union and the train drivers’ union, Aslef. Over the next year we should look to gain more support not just at a national level, but also in local union branches and trades councils.

Dave Vincent, who won the PCS to back both STWC and Hopi, opened the session on unions by attacking the nationalist sentiment that is being pushed with the ‘our boys’ sentiment.

It is through working class action that wars can be stopped and it is important for Hopi to spread its roots deeper into the trade unions, so that when the time comes for such action, it has already gone some way in winning the arguments. Comrade Vincent ended his introduction by insisting that the main enemy is at home.

Comrade Mather outlined the workers’ struggles inside Iran and their increasing desperation, as sanctions throw thousands out of work or leave them without wages every week. She warned that the threats and sanctions against Iran are hindering the independent organisation of the working class.

A motion submitted by Hopi Manchester and moved by myself urged a better organised presence within the trade unions. It is important for supporters to go into their unions and get affiliates. It is also important to have publicity material readily available. Terry Brotherstone, University and College Union Scotland president, said that discussions on the issues raised by Hopi has begun within his union. The Manchester Hopi motion was passed unanimously.

Smash the sanctions

John McDonnell MP who has been an active supporter of Hopi over the last year, moved the motion to launch a ‘Smash the Sanctions’ campaign submitted by Vicky Thompson and backed by Hopi Manchester. He questioned whether the threat of war had receded because of the election of Obama. Hopi should not let its guard down and he was “anxious in the extreme” over the coming period.

Sanctions have crippled Iran, and the history of sanctions have shown that the loss of life can be massive. So it is important for anti-war activists to build a campaign against the growing regime of sanctions on Iran. Comrade McDonnell correctly pointed out that this campaign is not to aid the regime but to aid the people. The bureaucrats and political elites in Iran easily get around sanctions to do their business. It is the working class and ordinary Iranians who are suffering, and it is vital not to let them “suffer in silence”. He also said that he will work through his links with the trade unions and within parliament to push the anti-sanctions campaign and get as many people behind it as possible.

There was a lot of discussion on the launch of this initiative. The sanctions on Iraq and Zimbabwe give us the opening argument. Sanctions against Iraq blocked surgical equipment and much needed medicine and this led to huge numbers of needless deaths.

Charlie Pottins, a member of the Jewish Socialist Group and the Hopi steering committee, said that sanctions are intended to destroy production and drive the working class into an existence which would not give them the time to grow in political confidence. He argued that it should be the tasks of the workers’ movement where possible to engage in sanction-busting actions like those that have been organised for the besieged inhabitants of Gaza. Other comrades warned that it will be an uphill struggle. Sanctions are often seen as a soft alternative to war. Nevertheless, the motion was passed - once again unanimously.

Beyond the Watford Gap

The final discussion of the day was on motion 5 and 6, which sought to overcome some of the shortcomings of Hopi over the last year. Vicky Thompson, PR and Hopi steering committee, moved motion 5, saying that it was in the best possible spirit and wanted to see Hopi more accessible to supporters up and down the country.

The discussion on Hopi’s organisational strengths and weaknesses was full of practical suggestions such as helping with travel expenses and organising events to coincide with steering committee meetings. Motion 5 was passed with a healthy majority making motion 6 void.

The day was a clear success. While the founding conference was dominated by the need to clarify the politics, this year there was a healthy balance of political debates and practical planning for the next year.

A new steering committee was elected with many organisation and shades of opinions represented: Yassamine Mather (CPGB), Mark Fischer (CPGB), Stuart King (PR), Marsha Jane Thompson (LRC), Torab Saleth (Workers Left Unity), Jim Jepps (Green Party), Ben Lewis (Communist Students and CPGB), Israeli socialist Moshé Machover, David Broder (the Commune), Tina Becker (CPGB), Charlie Pottins (Jewish Socialists Group) and Vicky Thompson (PR).

Burn Piggy Burn - Greek youth on the Streets

2008-12-07T11:20:00.000-08:00

What do you do when a comrade is shot dead by the old bill? (See Indymedia) In Greece they set fire to car dealers, police officers, cars, buses and anything else they can get their hands on. They may also throw a couple of grenades in the direction of the police.

If you watch the BBC, you may think this is some anarcho youth coming out of the universities for a ruck with the police, but this is in fact just another episode in the ongoing crisis in Greek society. Strikes and spectre of economic collapse have spurred on workers and students to take to the streets in protest.

Nepal gives full rights to LGBT people

2008-11-19T05:07:00.000-08:00

From PinkNews

A Nepali MP has said his "eyes were filled with tears" when he read the full written decision of the country's Supreme Court on a writ petition from four organisations representing lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex people.

A summary decision was issued in December 2007, when the court issued directive orders to the Nepal government to ensure the right to life according to their own identities and introduce laws providing equal rights to LGBTIs and amend all the discriminatory laws.

The final judgement was issued today.

It reiterates that all LGBTIs are defined as a "natural person" and their physical growth as well as sexual orientation, gender identity, expression are all part of natural growing process. Thus equal rights, identity and expression must be ensured regardless of their sex at birth.

The writ petition was filed by Blue Diamond Society and other 3 LGBTI organisations in Nepal demanding the protection and defence of the equal rights of sexual and gender minorities.

"Reading this decision my eyes were filled with tears and I felt we are the most proud LGBTI citizens of Nepal in the world," said Sunit Pant, Nepal's only gay MP.

"A legal note of point has been raised for the new constitution of Nepal while ensuring the equal rights to individuals, like the bill of tights from South Africa, and non-discrimination provisions on the grounds of sexual orientations and gender identities must be introduced."

The Court has also issued a directive order to form a seven-member committee, with a doctor appointed by Health Ministry, one representative from National Human rights commission, the Law Ministry, one socialist appointed by government of Nepal, a representative from the Nepal police, a representative from Ministry of Population and Environment and one advocate as a representative from the LGBTI community, to conduct a study into the other countries' practice on same-sex marriage.

Based on its recommendation the government will introduce a same-sex marriage bill.

Mr Pant, founder of Blue Diamond Society, was named in May as one of five representatives of the Communist Party of Nepal-United in the 601 member new constituent assembly.

The Maoists are the largest party with 220 seats.

Maoist insurgents, who fought a ten-year guerrilla war against monarchist forces at a cost of over 12,000 lives, finally signed a peace agreement with the new democratic government in November 2006.

LGBT people joined the Maoist rebels and others to protest in a democracy movement against the king, demanding a freely elected, secular government.

King Gyanendra eventually relinquished sovereign power to the civilian government and elections were finally held for a new assembly on 10th April.

Gays and lesbians in the Himalayan kingdom previously suffered persistent persecution from security forces during the absolutist rule of King Gyanendra. The harassment of lesbian, gay and trans people continued at the hands of Maoist rebels.

The assembly will draft a new constitution, decide the fate of the monarchy and govern Nepal for the next two years.

Mr Pant is a hero to many gay activists across the world. On a visit to India last week he said:

“We have moved from being a marginalised and persecuted lot who were thrown out of homes, schools and jobs to people who have human rights and are now protected by the police, the same people who once harassed us.

"In Nepal, the LGBTI communities were part of the campaign for garnering votes for the Communist Party of Nepal.

"They approached me to campaign and I managed to secure 15,500 votes. It makes a statement that LGBTI people are interested in matters of politics and governance and not just sex.

"The campaign not only gave LGBTI issues visibility but a platform to negotiate for rights.

"It is one thing to clean up the city and stop transgenders from begging but one must provide them with alternative means of living.

"India is a very big country and a single strategy may not work. However, I’m sure it won’t be long before a political party will tap the LGBTI vote bank¯there are millions of untapped votes.”

In May 2007 the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission gave its Celebration of Courage award to Mr Pant.

The LRC back HOPI

2008-11-15T15:36:00.000-08:00

Today, comrades at the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) voted almost unanimously to affiliate to Hands Off the People of Iran. This is brilliant news for Hopi- since our founding conference last year we have grown in strength, winning major trade unions, ASLEF (the train drivers' union) and the 300,000-strong PCS. Today's affiliation shows that Hopi is continuing to make great strides forward. From Infantile and Disorderly

Voting for action that is not gonna happen

2008-11-06T16:12:00.000-08:00

Surprise, surprise the NUT leadership has gone against a successful ballot for action. NUT members voted 52% in favour of strike action, which is not massive mandate for strike but still the overwhelming wish of the membership. Socialist Worker backs up the claim for strike action by arguing ‘after all Barack Obama was elected US president after winning just over 52 percent of the vote!’.[1] As always there will be calls from the left to ‘listen to the membership’ and to ‘act on the will of the membership’, which I obviously echo but is somewhat less than helpful in organising a fight in the unions against the bureaucracy. What is needed is a sustained fight from a united left within the NUT and the unions full stop. Obviously the 52% vote in favour of strike action show that the base of union is less than energised about the prospects the union is offering for a fight back, or the bureaucrats have successfully put a downer on the ballot. Which wouldn’t be surprising. What it also shows is that the Left has been extremely unsuccessful in building on the April strike which saw a 75% vote in favour of action, it also shows that the membership understands that one day strikes once in a blue moon, only to be sold down the rive by the leadership are not working.

Any strike action would only be successful on the ability of the left to invigorate the membership and show clear leadership and on the ability of the bureaucracy to stifle democracy and channel anger elsewhere. Problem being the Left in the unions are shit. Beyond shit in fact. When the left captures high positions or the majority of an executive like the Socialist Party has in the PCS, it acts and behaves in practically the same way the right wing bureaucrats do. If we take Jane Loftus for example, SWP member, member of the CWU executive and what did she do whilst the leadership was selling out the Postal Strike? Nothing, she went along with it, she didn’t even bother to tell her comrades on strike that they were being sold out. Has she been expelled by the SWP yet?
When the self proclaimed left and revolutionary left largely behave like the right wing bureaucrats any fight back will constantly be stifled and driven back. Even so called socialists don’t offer support to comrades who are being attacked. Members of the SWP have behaved shamefully by not backing Adrian Swain (Permanent Revolution) when he was sacked for being a P.E. teacher who wore trainers! [2] Imagine if the left had behaved so sectarian when Karen Reissmann was chucked out for being a trade unionist, cries of treason would of come from the SWP.

So we have a problem, the NUT is a case and point, the left wont get its act together and behaves almost exactly like the right wing bureaucrats which result in one day tokenism and the holding back of struggle. What is needed is clear political leadership and energetic campaigns from the grassroots to show these misleaders for what they are and oust them from the unions. The struggle for effective defensive action by our class, must start with an effective struggle against the bureaucracy and that can only come about with programmatic clarity and the ability of activists to unite on a principled political basis within the unions whilst keeping control over any officials.

1. http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=16394
2. http://permanentrevolution.net/entry/2385

Hold on to your rifles boys!

2008-10-30T00:13:00.000-07:00

Mexican police arrest Oaxacan Activists for Brad Will's Murder

2008-10-18T23:58:00.000-07:00

Mexican federal police arrested five Oaxacan activists on Thursday afternoon. At least two were arrested for supposedly murdering US citizen and Indymedia journalist Brad Will on October 27, 2006.

Brad Will was assassinated while reporting and filming the 2006 uprising in Oaxaca. Multiple witnesses say he was shot by paramilitaries who are seen in photos shooting towards Will. The paramilitaries are: Juan Carlo Soriano, municipal police officer; Manuel Aguilar, council personnel chief; Able Santiago Zarate; and Pedro Carmona, mayor of Felipe Carrillo Puerto de Santa Lucia del Camino.

The government claims that Will was shot at close range, therefore implicating the APPO activists around him. To prove this claim, the government at one point stated that the autopsy found powder burns on Will's body consistent with a close-range shooting. However, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy contradicted this claim, saying he did not find powder burns on Will's body.

The man the government accuses of being the intelectual author of Will's murder is Juan Manuel Martínez Moreno. Martínez Moreno has supported the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO in its Spanish initials). Martínez Moreno made headlines in 2007 when he was kidnapped along with two other APPO members while performing election observation in Santa Lucía del Camino, where Will was murdered in October 2006. The kidnappers beat the three APPOistas severely in the face and abdomen under a bridge and then dumped them in a community 38 kilometers from Oaxaca City.

Police also acknowledged arresting Octavio Perez Perez for covering up the crime. Perez participated in the 2006 uprising in Oaxaca.

The Angry White Kid blog reports that three other activists have been arrested: Lirio Lopez, Miguel Lopez, and Guadalupe (last name unknown). It is unknown if these activists are also accused of Will's murder or if the arrests are part of a larger crackdown on dissent in Oaxaca.

According to Angry White Kid: "Activists here first learned of the detention of Juan and joined his family this evening at the Penitenciaria Central de Santa Maria Ixcotel, Oaxaca. Juan's mother and wife have not been allowed in to see him. Later it was learned four others had been detained. A planton is planned at the Ixcotel penal beginning at 9am on Friday."

APPO activists and members of the Indigenous Popular Council of Oaxaca (CIPO) say the government is blaming activists for Will's murder in order to cover up its own involvement in the crime.

from Narconews

Marxism vs Zionism - Machover vs Matgamna

2008-10-15T12:24:00.000-07:00

Here is the link for video of the debate between Moshe Machover and Sean Matgamna (AWL).

There will be a report up in tomorrows Weekly Worker. Here is a game for comrades to play, see if you can spot when Matgamna talks about Iran in his opening speech. No one else heard him talk about Iran; even though it was a "discussion" article on Iran that has led us to this debate.

CPGB's Mark Fisher on TV

2008-10-11T18:10:00.000-07:00

The SWP's Martin Smith also is interviewed.

Defend trans people- WW740

2008-10-09T13:43:00.000-07:00

Transphobia is completely unacceptable, writes Robbie Folkard

http://cpgb.org.uk/worker/740/defendtrans.html

A furore has erupted at Manchester University after one set of toilets in the student union building was made gender-neutral, the toilets formerly being ‘ladies’ and ‘gents’ now being merely ‘toilets’ and ‘toilets with urinals’.

The idea was to provide trans (gender-variant) students with toilet facilities where they would no longer be at threat of victimisation or abuse. This provoked hysteria from the union’s newspaper, Student Direct, and various other publications. It was claimed that this was ‘political correctness gone mad’.

The editorial of the September 22 Student Direct described the move as “potty parity”, and ridiculed trans people by claiming the facilities were for “those men who do not ‘self-identify’ as men, and all those women who do not think of themselves as women”. Quite rightly this received a sharp rebuke from women’s officer Jennie Killip, who wrote a letter published in the September 29 edition, signed by 60 other people including Communist Students comrades, protesting against the “great offence” caused, and the “degrading treatment” and “overt vilification” of trans students.

Following this, a whole host of bourgeois papers took up the story, including The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, as did the BBC. All seemed to reject the move, with the most shocking response coming from the October 1 Daily Star, which claimed that the student union “changed the signs on the gents to read ‘toilets with urinals’, so tomboys can use them if they feel the need”. Susannah Birkwood, editor of Student Direct, was quoted in the Mail as saying: “Whether or not this is political correctness gone mad … it certainly seems that way to some members of our student community.”

Such outright transphobia is completely unacceptable, especially for an elected officer of a student union; though the fact that Birkwood felt able to be transphobic quite so crassly without fear of being held accountable for her actions highlights the complete lack of a democratic culture on campuses. Trans people should have the same opportunities and should be catered for, however small a minority they are (one of the many arguments against the move was that trans students are far too few for such a move to be necessary). In this case in particular, the toilets in question are one set in a building which has four.

It was also argued that women would not feel safe in the same toilets as men. However, they can quite easily use one of the other three sets of toilets if, for whatever reason, they feel unable to use the gender-neutral toilets. The arguments which claim that the move would adversely effect religious groups furthermore are, in many cases, a cynical bid to set one minority against another. After all, the decision to change the toilets in question was almost unanimously approved by the student union council and executive - elected bodies which have a large proportion of students from a variety of religions.

This publicity was, quite obviously, a bid to make the idea that trans people are just another section of society that needs to be catered for, just like women, lesbians and gays, or ethnic minorities, seem absurd. The toilets were never the issue: it was the acceptance of trans people into society that was being debated. The characterisation of this acceptance as ‘political correctness gone mad’ has in the past been applied to the acceptance of other oppressed groups. It is a symptom of the attempted division of the working class under the capitalist system - a division that we must always oppose; including in the face of hysterical attacks on student unions for attempting to provide better conditions for oppressed groups - in this case trans people.

Communists must defend trans people against such attacks. We aim to be tribunes of the oppressed and stand in solidarity with all oppressed groups. We must defend the gains made by trans people, but must also fight to extend them. For instance, in a country like Britain, gender reassignment surgery has very limited availability, especially on the NHS. The same goes for counselling services and hormone therapies, along with a whole host of other services. These must be free on demand. Trans people should not be forced by a repressive society to wait for long periods of time, or made to prove their worth for such things.

Sometimes it is said that rich trans people can afford to go private, while those from the working class have to go on long NHS waiting lists, and some even join the army in a bid to get free access to the services they need. While that is true, we defend the rights of all oppressed groups, no matter what class they belong to. In addition, we must also fight for the rights of trans people to complete legal recognition, not just in employment and such areas as adoption, but in all areas of life. The concept that sex and gender is specifically linked to birth must be fought against.

Of course, these democratic questions must be taken up by the workers’ movement as a whole. Whilst we defend the right of trans people to democratically organised autonomy, we must fight sectionalism of all kinds. We must be unequivocal in stating our belief that only in the struggle for working class power and communism will the liberation of trans people, and all other oppressed groups, be realised.

This must necessarily be a collective struggle, a struggle not just of a few separate groups fighting alongside each other, but of a democratically organised whole fighting for the liberation of humanity. On the other hand, this goal, whilst always being paramount, must never obscure the fight for better conditions for the oppressed in the here and now; even at the basic level of fighting for the right of trans people to use toilets without fear.

No War! No Sanctions! Solidarity! HOPI Manchester Meeting

2008-10-09T07:02:00.000-07:00

The threats against Iran are growing, the biggest US fleet since 1992 are now in the Persian Gulf. Israel has set about dry run tests in the Mediterranean practising bombing raids against Iranian nuclear facilities. Inside Iran the threat of war is giving excuses for the regime to crack down on dissent. HOPI Manchester is going to be working hard over the next year to build up a movement against war, whilst strengthening the links we made last year with the students' movement in Iran.

We have the privilege of hosting two leaders of the Iranian student movement this month. Kaveh and Behrooz have been imprisoned and tortured for simply protesting against war and repression. They are now in the UK and will be going up and down the UK giving their experiences of the movement in Iran whilst stressing the need to build up a principled anti war movement. Over the next couple of weeks we will be doing stalls and leafleting to get as many people as possible to the event.

Upcoming actions

Wednesday 15th October - HOPI Leafleting outside the University of Manchester Students' Union - Starting at 11.30pm and finishing at 2pm

Thursday 16th October - HOPI Leafleting outside the University of Manchester Students' Union - Starting at 11.30pm and finishing at 2pm

Saturday 18th October - HOPI Leafleting on Market Street Manchester City Centre - Starting at 12pm and finishing at 2pm

Wednesday 22nd October - HOPI Leafleting outside the University of Manchester Students' Union - Starting at 12pm and finishing at 2pm

AND

Meeting with Iranian student leaders - University of Manchester Students' Union - Meeting Room 4 - Starting at 7.30pm

Next branch meeting - Wednesday 15th October - University of Manchester Students' Union at 6.30pm - Room TBC

Email - manchesterhopi[at]googlemail.com

More Students Arrested in Iran

2008-10-08T13:10:00.000-07:00

On Sunday 5th Oct a group of Iranian students gathered in front of the Islamic Majlis (parliament) in Tehran protesting at their expulsion and other restrictions from the university authorities.

These students are known as “marked students” - a term used by the Ministry of Higher Education to describe students with no security clearance from the Ministry of Intelligence following their anti-government activities during Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s tenure .

The State Security Forces cordoned the protesters and did not allow them access to Majlis. The Ministry of Education has refused to issue 17 of the graduated students their degrees. It has informed the students that since they have no security clearance they are not eligible to receive a diploma.

A number of students were arrested and transferred to the police precinct in Enqelab Square, according to their relatives.

Annual James Larkin Commemoration

2008-10-05T05:29:00.000-07:00

Liverpool Irish socialist and trade union leader

Saturday 11 October 12 noon Liverpool

Assemble: Mount Pleasant, Liverpool L3

March to city centre, followed by rally and function

Prominent Republican speaker

Republican Flute Bands (RFBs) in attendance

All welcome

Organised by the James Larkin Society supported by the James Larkin RFB

Behrooz Karimizadeh and Kaveh Abbasian - HOPI Press Conference

2008-10-03T09:17:00.000-07:00

A well attended press conference in central London on September 29 saw two student activists from the Equality and Freedom Seeking Students in Iran describe their experiences at the hands of the theocratic regime. Whole report here.

The No Fuel Poverty Campaign

2008-10-01T14:11:00.000-07:00

I got this in my inbox and though i would share it with everyone, a great campaign. The website can be found at http://www.nofuelpoverty.org/home.htm

"Taxing the Energy Companies !

Bail out the people and not the bankers

One of the serious proposals from the Convention of the Left held in Manchester last week, was for an united campaign to demand a windfall tax on the Energy Companies, and to campaign that these companies are brought back into public ownership.

This week Gordon Brown has demonstrated that he is more than willing to hand over billions to the bankers, but reluctant to tax the energy companies who have been profiting from the rise in fuel costs. He said he will do "whatever is necessary" for the stability of the system.

What about 'whatever is necessary' to stop millions of families sinking into fuel poverty.

To help kick of the No to Fuel Poverty Campaign in Manchester. There be Campaign stalls, with petitions to sign and window posters to hand out. This Saturday 4th October. From 12 noon, Market Street, ( Cross Street end). Manchester City Centre."

Sex and the Revolution- First Meeting of the Marxist Radical Forum

2008-09-30T15:02:00.000-07:00

The Marxist Radical Forum, in conjunction with the UMSU Women's Rights Group, held an extremely lively, well attended and at times heart-wrenching first meeting. The meeting was addressed by two members of the English Collective of Prostitutes, a member of the International Sex Workers' Union, and a member of the Trotskyist group Permanent Revolution, speaking on behalf of the Marxist Radical Forum.

While the majority of the discussion focused on the very important issue of decriminalisation versus legalisation (where the consensus was generally for decriminalisation as the only action that would really benefit sex workers, and an action that would actually take into consideration the views of the majority of sex workers), a few extremely importants themes arose:

1) Self-organisation of workers, as workers. There was strong support for the speakers' views that the only way that sex workers can really fight back against attacks by the government, is if they organise together.

2) Solidarity. Cari from the ECP called for the strong support of students against proposed draconian legislation by the Government. It is most welcome to hear calls for oppressed groups to join together in struggle.

3) Internationalism. The Sex Workers Union being organised internationally is another strong sign of solidarity.

4) While most energetically put forward by the MRF speaker, the idea that victimisation of certain groups such as sex workers, the nuclear family as an institution, and the general oppression of women were linked- they all originate from the beginnings of private property and the division of labour.

Linking these things together is not such a small step, and when done, they lead to a simple conclusion. That the workers' movement must take up the democratic questions of all oppressed groups (become 'tribunes of the oppressed' if you will), and join together with these groups (who of course have the right to democratically organise independently) to take on the capitalist state, and through a revolutionary struggle, smash it and the system that it defends, on an international scale. Only then will these groups, including sex workers, be truly liberated.

Left Doesn't Unite - WW 738

2008-09-26T06:46:00.000-07:00

Well-mannered and inoffensive - the Convention of the Left illustrated the problem the left faces, writes Chris Strafford

“It’s official - the left unites!” That is the bold claim made by the Convention of the Left in its September 22 bulletin. Those present agreed to the statement of intent that was developed by the CL organising committee. The declaration was put forward by John McDonnell MP and supported by Respect councillor Salma Yaqoob.

While the convention brought 300 or so people together in the same building, that, unfortunately, is not quite the same thing as the left uniting. The CL postponed any discussion on motions or decisions on actions, etc until the recall conference some time in November. We said that the CL would be a talking shop and we were right.

It is true that the convention did see some debate and it was organised in a way that was more open and inclusive than most left events. The problem, however, is that the so-called ‘20% that divides us’ was skirted around. It is only by tackling our differences head-on that we can hope to achieve real unity. And, of course, there is no intention on the part of the organisers to aim for that unity to take party form.

After the weekend the number of participants dropped considerably, yet sessions were reasonably well attended for weekday meetings. The CL made space for discussions on a wide range of issues, but what was missing, and indicative of how the majority of our movement approach unity, was the lack of time given over to assess what has gone wrong and how we are going to fix it. The view that if we stop arguing about what our disagreements are and just get on with working together on the basis of the ‘80% where we agree’, then everything will be fine. In reality it is a recipe for unprincipled lash-ups and inevitably splits further down the line.

Despite this lack of clarity the CL is seen by some as the start of a process to rebuild the base organs of our class. They hope that the spread of the CL across the country could begin to build up better coordination and confidence amongst the working class and its campaigns. For this to happen, it would need not only the full commitment of the main left groups, but the drawing in of thousands of others. Neither of those things are about to happen - the Socialist Workers Party and Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain have hardly thrown themselves into the CL, while the Socialist Party stayed away altogether.

A more likely scenario will be the holding of a few poorly attended local conventions, set up by comrades who might have or might not have participated in the Manchester convention. A recall conference will hardly be a mass event and will perhaps be even less representative of our movement. It would certainly lack the organisational clout needed to move it forward, given that nobody involved at the top is even aiming for a principled Marxist party.

The CL ended on September 24 with a session entitled ‘Question time of the left’. The panel was made up of an ‘official communist’, the CPB’s Robert Griffiths, Mark Serwotka, the shibboleth-dropping Lindsey German of the SWP, left nationalist Colin Fox (Scottish Socialist Party), the left’s favourite Green, Derek Wall, the ever-present John McDonnell MP and left liberal Hilary Wainwright (Red Pepper). Unfortunately George Galloway MP did not attend and was replaced by Manchester Respect member Clive Searle.

The whole affair was well-mannered, inoffensive and illustrated perfectly the problem the left faces. Everyone agreed on the need for better public services, a windfall tax and opposition to war. What no-one touched upon was the chronic failure of the left to come together in a single, democratic party of working class socialism. Just what went wrong with Respect, the SSP, the Socialist Alliance, Socialist Labour Party …? Why has the left shrunk even further into the political wilderness? Far from being the ‘historic moment’ that was claimed by some, CL ‘unity’ is built on such a fragile and superficial basis that it is destined, just like its forerunners, to fall at the first hurdle.

Around the Web

2008-09-18T14:46:00.002-07:00

I have been doing a little bit of reading round the internet and these are the articles which taught me a few things, so i am sharing them with you. I may not agree with everything that is in these articles, but they are a good read.

The Credit Crunch 2 - Three Days that Shook the World - Workers Power/LFI

Bolivia: the empire strikes back - Permanent Revolution

SPD's move right benefits the German left - Socialist Worker

Nothing in common with those who excuse war - CS Website

The new Chinese Capitalism - International Viewpoint/ Fourth International

Convention talking shop - WW 737

2008-09-18T14:46:00.000-07:00

Serious rethink needed - not platitudes.

My article for the current issue of the Weekly Worker

The forthcoming Convention of the Left (CL) - organised in Manchester as a ‘counter-conference’ to the Labour Party’s annual gathering from September 20-24 - has been touted by some as the first step towards yet another halfway house unity project.

Unfortunately, we all know that principled unity has not even been contemplated. Instead of working towards unification within a single Marxist party, over the last decade virtually every revolutionary group has aimed to protect its own sect integrity, while at the same time attempting to set up electoral fronts with those to their right - often with just about anyone who they think may help win them some votes.

This has been epitomised by the experience of the Socialist Alliance and Respect. The SA was made up overwhelmingly of members of the revolutionary groups, but for none apart from the CPGB was it viewed as an opportunity to take the limited cooperation achieved onto a qualitatively higher organisational level. The SA stood in elections on a left reformist platform, appealing to Labourites as Labourites.

Respect represented a retreat even compared to the SA. The Socialist Workers Party leadership thought it could make greater electoral headway by ditching most of the other groups and further watering down its own politics. Respect was a classic unpopular popular front. A whole range of principles - a woman’s right to choose an abortion, gay rights, open borders, a workers’ representative on a worker’s wage, republicanism, secularism, even working class socialism - were junked in order to accommodate George Galloway, Muslim activists, British-Bengali businessmen and trade union bureaucrats, in the hope that SWP comrades might be able to get themselves elected in the process.

Those involved in the CL include Galloway’s Respect Renewal, the Labour Representation Committee and eventually, after seeing the CL attract substantial forces, the SWP. It is obvious that both fragments of the Respect split are looking to make gains. RR will want to see similar events across the country, where it will hope to win people to its soft left politics. Respect is the biggest mover within the CL organising group and has made sure there will be no real discussion on the lessons to be learnt from its own experience. The LRC put up a lot of the money needed for the convention, and has meetings organised throughout the week featuring its leading members.

The very first session is titled ‘What unites us’, with John McDonnell (LRC), Tony Benn, Lindsey German (SWP) and Derek Wall (Green Party). This is intended to highlight the so-called 80%-20% principle, whereby we campaign only on those questions where we agree and ignore everything we disagree on. Many people might think that the left ought to be united on such questions as LGBT and women’s rights, but comrade German was responsible for downgrading such “shibboleths” when Respect was launched.

In reality, as Respect demonstrated all too clearly, such lowest-common-denominator unity cannot last. It leads to immediate crisis and the probability of splits when a practical question related to the 20% is posed by life itself. Such false unity has led to the disillusionment of thousands of socialists in Britain and left our movement more fractured and smaller than ever. If we are to achieve a genuine unity and not just end up with another Respect, then we are going to have to confront the issues which divide us in an open, honest and sharp way.

But for that to happen the left groups are going to have to abandon their bureaucratic centralism in favour of democracy and transparency. Members must be free to publicly raise differences in order to openly combat the sectarianism, economism and rank opportunism that is so prevalent.

Take the Socialist Party and its beleaguered Campaign for a New Workers’ Party front. The SP decided not be involved in the CL. Instead it is setting up shop down the road for a CNWP meeting. This will be held immediately after the anti-war demo on September 20, but it is very doubtful it will attract many. Surely the comrades would have had more luck getting people signed up at the CL.

Another highlight could be ‘Question time for the left’ on Wednesday September 24. This will feature, as well as comrades McDonnell, German and Wall, Robert Griffiths (Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain), Mark Serwotka (Public and Commercial Services union), Hilary Wainwright (Red Pepper), George Galloway and Colin Fox (Scottish Socialist Party). It will be interesting to see how the various participants cope with what promises to be a chaotic Q&A session - but don’t expect anything more than the usual platitudes - or anything much in the ‘20%’ department.

While we welcome the opportunity to engage with so many factions, including those of the Labour left, it is clear that the event can only be a talking shop. It is certainly not a serious attempt to forge organisational unity - not even in the shape of another ‘broad party’ or ‘united front of a special kind’ that subordinates socialist politics to the requirements of the right in the vain hope of achieving a breakthrough.

Some of those involved in the CL say that any kind of organisational unity is unrealistic at the moment - all we can hope for is better coordinated action within various single-issue campaigns. Of course, there is nothing wrong with better coordination, but the problem is not the ineffectiveness of each campaign in and of itself: the problem is the lack of a democratic-centralist party capable of giving such campaigns a common direction. Working together does help build links, but to what end?

While the convention provides some limited space for communists to argue for the kind of unity I have outlined, it proposes no concrete steps. We are not going to even discuss what has gone wrong, let alone agree on any future action. Instead of opening the floor to suggestions on common aims, all we are going to get is a declaration of platitudes to be approved. There will be no motions and no votes. There is a proposal for a recall conference in November, but what it is supposed to be deciding on is unclear, as the organising committee is adamant that the CL should not be about setting up a new organisation.

Which makes you wonder, what is the point of the whole thing? Considering all the effort and money that is going into getting the left together, it is a pity that the organisers’ sights are raised no higher than better coordinated campaigns and perhaps a few local forums that are bound to be short-lived.

The left is in desperate need of a serious rethink, but the Convention of the Left proposes no such thing.

Best posts in the Lefty Blogosphere

2008-09-14T07:03:00.000-07:00

5. SWP scales down involvment with “LEFT ALTERATIVE” at Socialist Unity - Looks like the SWP is entering into civil war at the top. Hopefully some moves in a more healthy direction will come out of it, but i am not holding my breath. The hornets' nest of the comments section is always a good read on SU when it is about the SWP.

4. Fannie, Freddie and the demise of bourgeois triumphalism at Dave's Part - A blog that is always worth a read. "The takeover of Freddie and Fannie was not in any sense an anti-capitalist measure; it was a pro-capitalist necessity. But it underlines the case that public ownership is sometimes socially essentially."

3. Coup threat in Bolivia at The Commune - The new boys and girls on the block have set up an excellent blog which has some very good coverage of the ongoing reaction in Bolivia against some modest reforms.

2. Dogs, Fleas, Pigs and… Sean Matgamna at Infantile and Disorderly - Yes this may seem a little biased, but it is truly a good post. King Matgamna tried to attack comrade Machover but ended up looking like a right burk. Why anyone would allow what he wrote to be published is beyond me. How embarassing for the AWL cadre.

1. “Moshe, I’d love to grow wings” at Shiraz Socialist - Ever wondered what it is like to support the ludicrous, check out Shiraz where Jim Denham and Sacha Ismail will delight you. The AWL loyalists truly are a gift that just keeps giving (and lying). The AWL after forcing Broder and others out have set about changing the agreed position of their organisation on Iran. At their National Committee they dropped the phrase "oppose an attack" on Iran. They now "don't take responsibility for it" and are "against" it. This means that if Iran is attacked the AWL wont be on the streets with the rest of us, they will be sitting at home reading some shit poety from Matgamna telling themselves that it is not their responsibility and Israel has a right to defend itself from the "Islamo- Fascists"...

*** If you want to give your brain a rest check this out!

Campaign to have H-Block escapee freed

2008-09-14T05:01:00.000-07:00

from Troops Out Movement
An Phoblacht 13/09/08

H-Block escapee Pól Brennan is looking forward to his court appearance on 17 September when his appeal for an “adjustment of status” will be heard.

The Belfast republican, who is being detained by the Department of Homeland Security in the United States, hopes that the presiding judge will rule in his favour so that he can move his case on.

Brennan was arrested in Texas in January of this year and has been detained without bail ever since. He has been refused bail as the US authorities have deemed him to be a “flight risk”.

So what initially for Brennan was a misunderstanding over a lapsed work permit has escalated into a full blooded attempt by the Department of Homeland Security to deport him from the United States.

Speaking by telephone from the Willacy County Processing Center in Raymondville, Texas where he is now being held, Brennan explained to An Phoblacht’s Peadar Whelan that “the adjustment of status hearing is about the devastating effect my deportation, if it were to happen, would have on my wife who is an American citizen.

“Her rights are enshrined in the Constitution so the court will consider the impact of my treatment, while in detention, on Joanna. Already she is suffering extreme hardship as a result of my detention because she is caring for her elderly parents as well as coping with my imprisonment.”

Pól Brennan, who was one of the 38 Republican POWs to escape from Long Kesh in 1983, was arrested in the United States in January of this year as he travelled with his wife from San Francisco to visit her parents in Texas.

A border guard noticed that Brennan’s work permit had lapsed and he was detained. Since then, a problem over his work permit has developed into a full-blown attempt by Homeland Security to have the Belfast republican deported.

Homeland Security prosecutors are also “vehemently opposed” to Brennan being bailed. Initially they argued that Brennan qualifies for mandatory detention without bail because he has a 2006 misdemeanor assault conviction for beating up a building contractor who’d refused to pay him $1,000 in wages.

He paid a $1,500 fine and served 500 hours of community service for the offence.

Prosecutors contend that that conviction automatically subjects him to a 1996 law stipulating that immigration detainees convicted of a crime after 8 October, 1998 must serve “mandatory detention” without bail.

It has since emerged that Homeland Security prosecutors have sued to deny immigration detainees the right to bond hearings on the basis of the 1996 law.

As such, prosecutors in Pól Brennan’s case, forced to withdraw that argument, have instead changed tack and are opposing bail on the grounds that Brennan is an alleged flight risk and a danger to society.

Brennan’s lawyer, Jim Byrne, is arguing that his client - a trained carpenter, a certified California housing inspector and a volunteer at a prestigious Oakland planetarium - is no threat to anyone.

The campaign in support of Pól Brennan has gathered pace in the months since his detention.

Three US Congressmen who have been active on Irish politics for years - New York Republicans Peter King and Jim Walsh and Richard Neal, a Democrat from Massachusetts - have written to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff calling for Brennan to be bailed.

The trio expressed their concern over Pól Brennan’s immigration detention. They pointed out that Brennan was the subject of a British extradition warrant, lodged in 1994, which was pursued through the Federal Court.

While the case was ongoing, the Long Kesh escapee was granted bail, which he honoured.

“In light of his history of good behavior on release and his record of full compliance with the conditions of bail previously imposed by the federal courts, it concerns us that ICE insists on detaining Mr. Brennan now without offering even the option of release on a reasonable bond to assure his good conduct and appearance at future immigration proceedings,” stated the Congressmen.

Although Pól Brennan had entered the United States illegally in 1984, he was eventually allowed to remain there after a campaign by Irish American supporters. The US made provisions in its domestic law to allow Brennan to remain in America.

The US also allowed the escapees to seek political asylum and granted him a work permit on the understanding that he (and the others) could remain in the United States until the asylum case was resolved.

“I was on the lowest possible immigration status and had to renew the work permit every six months. So when I was stopped by the Border Guards and told them I had applied for the permit to be renewed I thought a couple of phone calls to my lawyer would sort it out.

“I’m disappointed that they are detaining me without bail. As far as I’m concerned they broke their word with regard to what we believed as my status here,” said Brennan.

For the first four months after his arrest Brennan was held in solitary confinement at Port Isabel Detention Center in Los Fresnos, Texas.

The prison authorities told him it was for his own safety as the other prisoners, mostly Mexican or from Central America, might harm him “because of his IRA past”.

When Brennan goes to shower he is accompanied at all times by officers from the Immigration Department.

Brennan has also endured transfers from detention centre to detention centre. In July, as Hurricane Dolly swept along America’s Gulf Coast, Brennan was evacuated to a detention centre in New Mexico. During the transfer he was shackled for the 14-hour trip and while in New Mexico it was almost impossible for his wife to visit him.

He is hopeful that his “adjustment of status” hearing will be successful and that this will open the way for him to be released on bail.

Meanwhile, back in Belfast, his family are campaigning to build support for their son and brother.

His sister Marion criticised the US Government, saying, “We urge everyone to ask their friends and contacts in the USA to write to their elected representatives and ask a simple question: is this the type of American justice that they support and, if not, can they take action to right a wrong being perpetuated against Pól Brennan and his family.”

His address is

Pól Brennan
A88 785 324
Pearsall Detention Center
566 Veterans Drive
Pearsall, TX, 78063

Please send letters, cards etc of support.

For further information on the Pól Brennan case go to www.polbrennan.com

War in the SWP?

2008-09-10T16:19:00.000-07:00

So the brilliantly clever John Rees and Lindsay German have alledgedly been ousted on order of the SWP CC from all electoral work. Apparently John Rees was forced to resign and German followed in protest, so people say over at Socialist Unity.

If this all turns out to be true then it means Harman, Callinicos and Kimber by waiting for Rees to fuck it all up will now be the driving force in the SWP. It was Rees who claimed Cliff's mantle but did not have Cliff's ability to see which way the wind was blowing from week to week. The SWP may be plunged into crisis, factional strife and a good airing of views. This would be a healthy thing, in fact an extremely healthy thing any party claiming to stand in the tradition of Lenin should relish the opportunity to renew its leadership, programme and tactics after such a farce like Respect. Yet it is very doubtful this will happen, the leadership may in its ivory tower fight like dogs, but the plebs must be kept in order. Whatever is going on within the CC the SWP rank and file are not privy and not involved and all of the CC recognise that it is their collective arses that are at stake if factional war erupts within the SWP.

It is a long time since the SWP had a decent factional fight, it is long overdue. Marxists don't enjoy factional strife for pleasure, it is a necessary component of a Marxist party, it ensures that the membership is sharp, clever and able to over turn decisions or fix lines which are wrong through open ideological struggle. If it was good enough for Marx, Lenin and Pankhurst then it is good enough for the left today, SWP included. The SWP should renew, open up and engage the membership in the creation of a revolutionary programme and embrace democratic centralism. Then we may see a party of decent size worthy of the title Marxist.

Marxist Radical Forum - Sex and the Revolution

2008-09-10T07:31:00.000-07:00

The first meeting of the Marxist Radical Forum is in conjunction with the UMSU Womens' group the Riveters. Speaking we have Catherine an activist from the International Union of Sex Workers, Vicky Thompson from Permanent Revolution and Jennie Killip UMSU Womens' Officer.

Time and Place
Date: Monday, September 29, 2008
Time: 5:30pm - 7:30pm
Location: Meeting Room 4 (Basement of Students' Union)
Street: Oxford Road

Come and listen to the speakers, join in the debate and change the world.

*No pictures are allowed to be taken*

Stop The War Students Rally

2008-09-07T10:47:00.000-07:00

Looks like it was the same lame politics everyone has come to expect by the STWC leadership, no strategy, no reality and no mention of the working class.

Dave Broder has reported on the event at the commune

Manchester Stop the War Public Meeting

2008-09-04T15:07:00.000-07:00

This evening there was a quite interesting but uneventful rally held by Greater Manchester Stop the War Coalition featuring academic Terry Eagleton, 'Guardian' journalist Seamus Milne and Socialist Workers Party leader, John Rees.

Most of the contributions were the usual deal, the importance and strength of Stop the War (in particular the notion that it was Stop the War that provoked the fall of Tony Blair!?) and the need for us to continue 'building'. Seamus Milne talked of the "staying power" of Stop the War, despite the fact that the leaders may have stayed, but the majority of the two million people who took to the streets of London in 2003 had drifted on by. After spending most of his time discussing the neo-cons project to sustain US hegemony, Milne's final call was that it is "now time to turn the heat up"- to kick Gordon Brown when he was down. This was echoed by most of the contributors who argued that the demonstration on the 20th could really 'change things'. Really?

Terry Eagleton provided his usual witty contributions, and spent most of his time discussing state and terror. He argued, quite rightly, that 'terror' is a form of political authority, that creates states and is then institutionalised to defend those states- barbarism and civilisation are 'two sides of the same coin'. He also talked of the fact that the conflicts which make up the 'War on Terror' are part and parcel of the system of advanced capitalism, something implied but never openly said by the others.
SWPer and author of 'Imperialism and Resistance', John Rees, made much of the hypocricy of the US and UK condemning Russia for attacking a 'sovereign nation state', when they were guilty of exactly the same offence. He argued that we were now in a period of a 'new imperialism' since the end of the Cold War, but that this period of a 'unipolar world' is in the process of being replaced by a 'multipolar' one- a fact apparently demonstrated in the Caucusus recently. The US 'War on Terror' is now destabilising the world relations of 'major powers' and consequently we are now entering into a much more dangerous period. He concluded that Stop the War must educate people about these developments and build up a movement to stop these processes, before the rivalry between the US and its regional rivals (such as Russia) turns into 'hot war'- our central task is of course to stop the plans of 'our leaders'.

While all the speakers and contributers spoke that we need to build a 'movement' to stop imperialism, the only strategy offered is to march and march again, such as on the 20th. The only alternative was offered by Jason Travis of Permanent Revolution and Bolton NUT, who talked of the power of working class action, and that the only force that will ultimately be able to defeat the imperialists is the working class- both nationally, and as part of an international working class movement. This contribution resulted, of course, in the usual murmurs of shock and derision by local SWPers. Injecting real working class politics into the anti-war movement is of course a complete no-no. It is fine to talk of imperialism, but never in the context of taking on capitalism as a system. The solution is of course the 'broad movement', not the international working class. When SWPers talked of an 'alternative', they meant an alternative to Brown and Miliband, not global capital.

Unless the logic of hiding your politics, hiding the real solutions, from people in a bid to build a bigger 'movement' is challenged, we wont be able to stop these wars let alone build the force needed to defeat imperialism and bring down capitalism and usher in human freedom and peace- a peace which the 'movement' is supposed to be all about.

National Union of Students Honorary Vice-President faces imprisonment in Iran

2008-09-04T15:06:00.000-07:00

On September 4 at 11am, Anooshe Azadbar - overwhelming voted one of its honorary vice presidents by the British student union at its annual conference in April - was brought before a court in Iran. She faced multiple charges:

– plotting against the Islamic regime

– plotting against the Islamic order

– acting against Iranian national interests with a left wing group

This arose from her prominent involvement in the December 4 2007 demonstrations where “Hands Off the People of Iran” placards were prominent.

Anooshe denied the charges, stating that this was a legal student demonstration against the threat of war, not an explicitly anti-regime protest.

In court, it was pointed out that this contradicted what she had said under interrogation. Anooshe replied that these statements had been obtained after she had been subjected to great psychological pressure. She also claimed to have been tortured.

Vague charges were also made that she had either received financial help from leftwing groups or had given money to certain groups. Her lawyer denied these charges, simply pointing out that as his client is penniless, she is clearly neither receiving money or in a position to dish it out. The judge eventually decided that the dossier was ‘incomplete’ and so Anooshe must go back to court at a later date for further questioning.

It is not clear when the next court hearing will be. She will be summoned to give another interview at the prosecutor’s office and following this there will be another court appearance. She is not the only student leader currently facing this oppression – it is estimated that another four or five other students are facing similar court procedures.

Ben Lewis of the Hopi steering committee commented:

“The dominant trend within the Islamic regime is clearly using the tension generated by the sabre-rattling of imperialism to clamp down on internal dissent. The harassment of our comrade Anooshe Azadbar comes at the same time as the sentencing of women’s rights activists of the One Million Signatures campaign to six-month prison terms and the ominous threats against the 2003 Peace Nobel Laureate, Shirin Ebadi, who has been dubbed an agent of Zionism.

“It seems the regime will not tolerate even mild-mannered reformist attempts to moderate its repressive rule, let alone the militant action of students. The threat of war plays into their hands - that’s why we stand against the war-mongering of the imperialists and the repressive regime in Tehran.”

Hopi demands that all charges against Anooshe Azadbar are immediately dropped. Our campaign will be organising press conferences and protests in solidarity with the arrested students. See subsequent releases and our website for details.

www.hopoi.org

New Contributor to Serge's Fist!

2008-08-27T04:48:00.001-07:00

Comrades,

To make the blog more diverse and for it to be updated more regularly Robbie F a member of Communist Students has now jumped on board =D

Communist University - Videos

2008-08-27T04:44:00.000-07:00

The Communist University

The CPGB's annual school is different. It features sharp clashes of opinion on the revolutionary left, not dull lectures. This educates the audience and the speakers. And who can doubt that the entire left needs some serious re-thinking? The CU features real debates - a genuine festival of ideas. We do not want another century like the last - we need clarity, unity and purpose. We need genuine communist politics again.

We have made available some video files from this year's Communist University, which took place from August 9-16 2008 in south London.

Check out the videos here: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/cu/2008/2008%20videos.htm

Save Farzad!

2008-08-18T17:18:00.000-07:00

From - http://www.ei-ie.org/en/urgentactionappeal/show.php?id=12&country=iran

"Stop the execution of teacher unionist Farzad Kamangar

Dear colleagues,

Farzad Kamangar, a 33-year old teacher and former trade unionist from the Kurdistan Province of Iran, is at risk of execution following the ruling issued at an unfair trial.

In recent weeks, EI has written to the Iranian Government to request a fair trial for Farzad Kamangar and other union activists who are under arrest. In spite of joint efforts from various national and international organisations to have death sentence of Farzad Kamangar communted, it was upheld by the Supreme Court on 11 July 2008. In addition, Iranian trade union colleagues and human rights activists who show solidarity with Farzad are being subjected to pervasive intimidation by the Iranian authorities.

The arrest, detention and condemnation of trade unionists because of their human and trade union activities are not only serious violations of trade union rights, but also create an atmosphere of fear prejudicial to trade union development in Iran.

Background Information

Kamangar, who worked as a teacher in rural areas and was a human rights activist, is accused of being a terrorist through his alleged affiliation to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK. According to his lawyer, Khalil Bahramian, there is no evidence to justify the judgement that Kamangar has “endangered national security”. His lawyer, who was not permitted to defend him, says Farzad’s trial was not in accordance with article 168 of the Iranian Constitution: “Political and press offences will be tried openly and in the presence of a jury, in courts of justice.” In this case, only one judge reviewed the case within five minutes and the defendant was not allowed to speak.

A support committee composed of members of the Teacher Trade Association, former colleagues of Kamangar and human rights attorneys, including Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, was established on July 21, 2008 to defend the civil rights of Farzad Kamangar and to undertake legal actions to have his death sentence commuted. Following the first meeting of the Committee, three teachers were arrested and taken to the Intelligence Detention Centre in Sanandaj, in the Iranian province of Kurdistan. Two – Hassan Ghorbani and Kaveh Rostami– are still in detention, while the third, Ahmad Ghorbani, was released on bail after two weeks. Farzad’s supporters and their family members are regularly intimidated through phone calls by the Ministry of Intelligence and National Security.

In addition to opposing the death sentence, EI condemns the torture of Farzad Kamangar while in detention and the subsequent denial of medical treatment. When his family was last allowed to visit him in prison, his injuries were such that he was unable to walk. EI has urged the Iranian authorities to investigate the reports of torture and to ensure that, in future, no detainee is subject to torture or ill-treatment.

To date, EI has no affiliate in Iran. However EI has received an application for membership from the Iranian Teacher’ Trade Association and a representative of that organisation was invited as a guest to the last EI Congress in Berlin in 2007. Upon his return from the EI Congress, Mohammad Khaksari was harassed by the security forces. Mr Khaksari is also an active member of the ‘Committee to Save Farzad’ and he is among those who are being harassed by the Ministry of Intelligence."

To see what you can do go here

Boris Kagarlitsky - On Georgia, Russia and War

2008-08-17T10:37:00.000-07:00

Boris Kagarlitsky is Russian Marxist at the Institute of Globalisation Studies.

Inter Imperialist War? World War 3?

2008-08-14T18:27:00.000-07:00

Whilst the world looked on in awe at the Olympics the maverick Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili, backed, funded and armed by the USA saw an opportunity to sort out some pesky separatists. The only problem was, these separatists are backed, funded and armed by the Russian Federation. Was this a terrible blunder by the USA or was it a carefully laid out trap by the Russian Federation?

Is Russia Imperialist?

Russia has been something of an economic miracle growing about 7% a year since 2000. “Even Mr Putin's critics are impressed by Russia's transformation in the past few years. A country that almost went bust ten years ago now boasts a $1.3 trillion economy, foreign-currency reserves of nearly $480 billion and a $144 billion stabilisation fund for surplus oil and gas revenue. Annual growth of real incomes has been in double digits. GDP per head has risen from less than $2,000 in 1998 to $9,000 today at current rates of exchange.” [1] The nightmare of the collapse of the plan and the soviet bureaucracy sent millions into poverty, the military collapsed, foreign capital smashed the iron curtain, capitalist bandits gorged themselves on Russia's collapse but now a new wealthier Russia is flexing it’s muscles, and it has been a scary sight for the USA and the West. But Russia has to impose it‘s will, if it is to maintain it’s current rate of growth.

Generally Russia's economy is being opened up to foreign capital on an increasing scale. This can be shown by looking at direct foreign investment which stood at $14.6 billion in 2005. In 2007 that rose to $30 billion. [2] Even with Putin hinting support for nationalisation in 2007 foreign direct investment rose by 91.3%. [3] . Until the recent fighting in Georgia, Russia was set to join the WTO and in 2007 signed an important bilateral trade agreement with the USA as a precursor to WTO membership. Any talk that it is not incorporated into world capitalism is simply nonsense. There are areas of the economy that remain under the control of the state, such as gas, oil and petrochemicals. The reason being for state control is that 30% of all state income is from oil and gas. This reliance on oil is the massive weakness for the continued growth of the Russian economy.

A question which needs to be answered is whether Russia can be considered imperialist? If we are to go by Lenin’s understanding of imperialism then Russia would of had have gone through the process of the merging of the banks with the industrial cartels, essentially monopoly capitalism that is dictated by finance capital. This process has occurred or was implanted after the collapse of the central plan. So does Russia export capital? Yes. Since the collapse of the USSR, corporations within the Russian Federation have exported capital at an increasing rate. “The first peak of capital export was reached in 1992-1994, when rates of net export (were at least $14 billion a year. In 2002-2004... this figure again reached $15-20 billion a year… in 2003, the total balance equalled $60 billion, and the volume of current operations about $35 billion. Even with an allowance for the growth of the gold and currency reserve, net capital export was more than $10 billion. According Kvasha, the growth of prices for Russian raw materials and the lack of need to increase exchange currency reserves, which exceed $90 billion, will make the capital export rate even higher.” [4] Whilst over the last few years the export of capital seems to be slowing as many Russian businesses are looking to invest internally during the economic turbulence created by the credit crunch the second quarter of 2008 showed a massive $35.7 billion net export of capital from Russia’s the private sector. [5] It is clear that Russian corporations under the encouragement of the political establishment is exporting vast sums of capital, especially to Europe.

It is necessary to understand the nature of the Russian Federation economy as to understand the motivations behind it’s reaction to the Georgian assault on South Ossetia. Russia's economy has been largely unaffected by the credit crunch as direct investment in the USA from Russia has been relatively low, also exports to the USA are also minimal with the exception of oil. High oil prices have given Russia a massive boost ensuring steady growth and it is important for the Russian economy to diversify as oil prices are set to fluctuate and depending on geo-political situations even fall. It is important then for Russia to be able to impose it’s prices on the world.

The caucuses have always been a playground for imperialists. The USA is desperate to keep it’s hands on access to the oil and gas rich area without having to go through Russia. Why? Because the USA and Europe for that matter fears that it will be held to ransom by Russia and it’s supporting regimes if Russia is holding all of the cards. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline carrying oil from the Caspian to Europe is the only “secure” pipeline in the region. This has given Georgia massive importance. Since the ‘Rose revolution’ of 2003 Georgia has been decisively pro- western. Georgia’s entry into NATO was on the cards, but considering no one came running to the military aid of Georgia against the Russian retaliation, I doubt we will see them joining NATO at all.

Illusions in Russia

Many in the workers movement have blamed the USA for it’s meddling in the caucuses for the war. Whilst the majority of the workers movement are right in this regard, they fail to recognise the role of a growing Russian imperialism. Many Trotskyists and Stalinists have jumped head first to defend the Russian Federation as if the USSR still existed. Coming from the Morning Star group who at one point backed Gorbachev, it is not very surprising. Nor is it surprising to see such positions coming from degenerate Trotskyist groups who will back anyone who is in open confrontation with the imperialist world hegemon the USA. To back the Russian Federation is to back imperialism, and the rise of Russia along with the relative decline of the USA is a signal that we are moving into a multi-polar world with contending imperialist blocs. It must however be said that Russia whilst capable of confronting the USA’s puppets in it’s own back yard has nowhere near the capacity of the USA. What has helped Russia in the current conflict is the USA being bogged down in the middle east and the massive build up of US forces in the Persian gulf for an expected US/Israeli attack on Iran.[6]

It is necessary for the workers movement to take an independent position. The fighting in Georgia is being carried out on behalf of two (not equal) imperialist states vying for control over resources in the region which are vital first to slow the relative decline of the USA and to maintain the current rate of growth and stability within the Russian Federation’s economy.

National Liberation?

South Ossetia and Abkhazia have never been part of Georgia since the break up of the Soviet Union, they have both in fact held a semi official independence whilst being very close to the Russian Federation politically. The hawks and the liberals unite in defending an imagined national integrity of Georgia and the people of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia are simply seen as Georgian citizens whilst the majority of Ossetian’s hold Russian passports. On November 12 2006 the people of S. Ossetia voted unanimously to be an independent state. [7] The result was denounced by the Georgian government and the world never recognised the democratic vote of S. Ossetia clashes in 2004 and the continuing insistence on independence lead in the end to a Georgian attack to squash the separatists. Ethnic cleansing has been claimed by both sides, the burning and looting by S. Ossetian militia backed by Russian special forces and the targeting of civilian districts by the Georgians have to be seen as an attempt to redraw the ethnic map in the region. The international socialist movement has to come in absolute defence of the self determination of peoples. That is we support the right to independence for the people of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia against Georgia and the right to self determination of Georgia against Russia and the USA.

The workers movement has to come out for the immediate and unconditional removal of all foreign forces from Georgia, Abkhazia and S. Ossetia. We must stand unequivocally for a federation of socialist republics in the caucuses where the rights of minorities are upheld by all.

World War 3

The last few days have made the world a lot more dangerous. HOPI steering committee member Tami Peterson has commented on this here. It is possible that these are the opening shots of world war 3 and we must be prepared for a rapid escalation between the USA/ NATO and Russia. If neither side backs down and the USA sends in more military aid then a whole host of combustible material will be contained in a very small area. One mistake and the US fleet could engage the Russian fleet and from then on, the world would be plunged into a great slaughter. I don’t think this will be the outcome though, I think we will see the USA come out as the big loser in this affair with the separatists winning practical if not official independence under the protection of the Russian Federation. Georgia has shown the weakness of the USA, all the hot air about sanctions and Russia being removed from the G8 is nonsense. At the end of the day the USA is dependant on keeping oil at a steady price, and is desperate for outlets for capital in the BRIC economies. Russia has showed that it is a force on the rise, whilst the USA has been shown that it is left to strong words and UN resolutions as opposed to military solutions in the caucuses.

1. http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10765120
2. http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/russia/russia_economy.html
3. http://uk.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUKBUS84732220071128?symbol=005380.KS
4. http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=511950
5. http://cbr.ru/eng/statistics/credit_statistics/print.asp?file=capital_e.htm
6. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/406664.html
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia#Republic_of_South_Ossetia

Imperialism's cheerleaders try to hit back....

2008-08-09T16:58:00.000-07:00

Keep on digging seems to be the motto of the CIA socialist leadership of the AWL. After being embarrassed and ridiculed by practically every section of the Left, they have decided to go on the offensive. The AWL, after excusing a military (even nuclear!) strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, have begun to go on the attack in a way that Stalin would be proud (see: here ). They enjoy distorting facts and have had to fall back on individual insults to keep things together. One only has to look over their website to see some half-baked insults from their ageing and increasingly right wing leadership.

Also read HOPI steering committee members Tami Peterson and Vicky Thompson responses

Tami
Vicky

The latest attempt to move the spotlight off their descent into open support for imperialism is an incoherent attack on Hands Off the People of Iran (HOPI). HOPI has, without a shadow of a doubt, been a success in mobilising and gathering many different tendencies and organisations around a common platform against war, sanctions and occupations, whilst also building practical and essential links with social movements in Iran. A silly accusation that many of HOPI’s detractors use is trying to make out that HOPI is a CPGB front, which would mean that thousands of trade unionists, green party members, other left wing groups, some of their own members and people like John McDonnell have simply been duped by the CPGB. In reality, the CPGB works hard up and down the country to make HOPI a success but remains a minority on its steering committee (take a look here) which is made up of comrades from a variety of different British and Iranian groups. Compare HOPI with their almost invisible Middle East Workers Solidarity which is simply an AWL front with no other forces involved, no major trade union backing and has been given a cold shoulder by the majority of Iranian militants either here in the UK or in Iran itself. What is more, what Iranian will now jump into bed with the AWL when the AWL is excusing military strikes on Iran? The Royalists?

Back to the latest article; at times it borders on fantasy and others on racism. Whoever wrote the article begins by explaining that the ‘clerical fascists’ in Iran would love to go up in flames after destroying Israel. “No sane socialist can want Iranian nuclear bombs. That would be true whatever the character of the Iranian regime, but it is especially true given the Islamic fundamentalist nature of the regime that has ruled in Iran for thirty years. It is a crazily religious clerical fascist regime: its leaders are concerned more with their imaginary supernatural world than with this.” The CPGB and the majority in HOPI do not support the ‘Mullah’s Bomb’, not because it would be used to attack Israel - that is clearly nonsense - but because it strengthens the regime internally and we are against all nuclear weapons. There are plenty of religious lunatics in the halls of power around the world, take a look at the Knesset in Israel and the White House in the USA- all filled with zealots of one sort or another but all driven by the interests of their own class not the supernatural. The Shia hierarchy is full of religious zealots but they are not stupid and they understand that it would be destroyed if it ever launched a nuclear strike against Iran; it is beyond the realms of reality that the AWL pose their unconditional defence of Israeli military adventures.

Now onto the AWL’s racism, the Zionists within Israel, who have been carrying out what can only be described as ethnic cleansing, are presented as rational democrats by the AWL time and time again but Persian and Arab Muslims are consistently presented to us as suicidal lunatics in the same manner as the tabloid press does.

The AWL also try to compare the Iranian theocracy to Nazi Germany. This is a slimy tactic to cover up their own cheerleading for imperialism by trying to create a state of equal affairs between Israel and Iran but also attempting to show that at times the interests of a national bourgeoisie may be superseded by other forces such as Islamic fundamentalism. Nazi Germany was on par and in some many respects ahead of the majority of countries within Europe and the world for that matter. Iran, on the other hand, whilst strengthened by the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (which the AWL support!) comes nowhere near the military capability of the occupying armies either side of it and nowhere near the military capability of Israel.

The AWL then enter the realm of the world of the hypothetical to try and prop up their pre-emptive excuses for mass murder in Iran. “What if - say in response to Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities - the clerical fascist regime set elements of Hamas or Hezbollah - or has already prepared them - to unleash a “dirty bomb” on Israel?” So first of all, everyone can see that the AWL doesn’t mind that Israel may engage in a radioactive massacre either through conventional weapons or nuclear strikes (something which the military top brass is considering!). The AWL, instead of condemning Israeli strikes, are wondering whether sections of the workers’ movement would support a retaliatory strike by Iran or its supporters in Lebanon or occupied Palestine. Again this is nothing more than an attempt to turn the current threats to Iran on their head to favour their pro-imperialist position. If Israel attacks Iran, no one can be sure what would happen but we should be very clear that we are for the defeat of imperialist aggression no matter how the AWL dress it up.

The AWL then try to make out that HOPI holds a position that supports the “Islamic chauvinists” and that HOPI is for a nuclear Iran. The AWL may have missed our founding conference and our weekend school, so I will link here the videos of HOPI’s stance towards nuclear weapons:

Moshe Machover -
Founding conference

Weekend School

I would say that Moshe represents the most eloquent speaker on the majority of HOPI supporters towards the question of nuclear weapons.

The AWL then get confused and equate the Iranian masses with the Iranian state; something we in HOPI go to lengths not to do. The AWL try to make out that a section of HOPI’s founding statement - “The tasks of the anti-war movement in Britain and HOPI is threefold. One to fight against any imperialist attack on Iran and support the Iranian peoples right to defend themselves by any means necessary” - means that we are for a nuclear Iran and that we back the Islamic republic, essentially going against every decision HOPI has made on this issue. The AWL have had to resort to lies after being shown for the imperialist cheerleaders they are.

The AWL claim that we are polluting working class independence, which should make everyone outside and some inside the AWL chuckle as supporting Imperialist murder in Iraq and now in Iran puts the AWL firmly outside the anti war movement*. The AWL cannot be considered part of the workers’ movement whilst they are supporting the mass murder and subordination of the working class under imperialism. The AWL then has the cheek to call for a debate with the CPGB. The AWL has done a runner from debates before; they couldn’t even bring themselves to debate it at their own school! Check out the history here.

Those who are now working with the AWL, have to begin to ask themselves if they wish to be discredited by the AWL and if they don’t then it is time to break those links. More importantly those in the AWL who are in the minority need to rebel and engage in factional war- otherwise they should be considered complicit in their silence.

*see comments for reason for edit.

Convention of the Left

2008-08-07T18:47:00.000-07:00

The brochure for the Convention is now done and can be viewed at: http://www.conventionoftheleft.org/resources/Convention_brochure_August08.pdf

Taking from the poor and giving to the poor...

2008-08-05T16:43:00.000-07:00

So a new job, plenty of walking involved. Been fundraising for charity more specifically for Scope. Scope is a charity which fights on behalf of Britain's 10 million disabled people, it used to do mainly work with people suffering from cerebral palsy but moved to cover everyone a few years back. Apart from the shocking reality of how disabled people live in the UK (which you can find out on their website.) something was confirmed for me.

I have long held the view that the working class are far more generous and giving when it comes to charity than the middle class or the rich. I have been doing my new job for a week now and i have been in some of the richest areas of Bolton and Manchester as well as going to some of the most poorest areas in Manchester. Overall i have had a good response from areas where the majority of people are pensioners, single parents, people on benefits and low paid workers. These people have always given me plenty of time to chat with them about Scope, disability and something which everyone is talking about; the credit crunch. The people that i have signed up to keep Scope going have very little money whilst in the rich areas the majority of people didn't give us the time of day. Now i'm not saying that this is a rule maybe in two months time i will be proved wrong.

I got wondering why the poor seem to give more than anyone else? I think it has to do with working people seeing on a daily basis what it is like to struggle, what it is like not to be able to do what you want, not get what you need from social services, NHS or the local authority etc. Essentially what i am saying is that working class people can empathise better because of what they go through day in day out.

Other things i have found out from my new job is that everyone is broke, everyone thinks Gordon Brown should go and everyone is fed up with fuel price rises. Not surprising really.

Brown down and out?

2008-07-25T03:38:00.000-07:00

So the country woke up this morning to see that Labour has been beaten in their sixth safest seat in the UK, Glasgow East. This defeat on the back of nose diving ratings should be the last bit of ammunition Brown's enemies within the Labour Party need to take him down.

How long can he hold on?

Karadzic captured

2008-07-22T15:57:00.000-07:00

Radovan Karadzic, the infamous Serbian nationalist (that has been hiding as Father Christmas) who carried out genocide against the muslim population has been captured and will soon be in the hands of NATO at the hague. He will have a sham trial and the decision has already been taken, he will spend the rest of his life in prison.

It is funny to see a stream of ministers and members of the political establishment rush onto our TV screens and fill the pages of the papers celebrating the capture of another Serbian nationalist leader. They remind us of the war crimes and ethnic cleansing, we are reminded that the intervention was fully justified and in fact it was taken too late.

How many have died since the war on terror has begun? And how many more will the Imperialists murder in the coming period. If talks break down with Iran, a massacre on the scale not seen since Hiroshima has not been ruled out by any section of the American bourgeoisie. Who will be brought to justice for Fallujah? or for the children left mutilated and orphaned by white phosphurus and depleted uranium, the imperialists will never pay for their war crimes, never pay for their massacres but will pose throughout Karadzic's trial as the defenders of reason and humanity.

Campaign Iran sucks up to US Imperialism

2008-07-17T15:24:00.000-07:00

Yes. It is true. Those principled fellows in the SWP-backed Campaign Iran have decided that you can criticise the Iranian regime and the USA is not so bad after all. If only those reformists around the millionaire scumbag 'Mullah with a smile' Khatami were in power in Iran to seek a nice agreement with US imperialism.

The Weekly Worker covered this bizarre change check it out here - WW 730

On the SWP-backed Campaign Iran's website a message of peace and solidarity to the people of USA. Check it out here!

Let's have a look at some of the things Campaign Iran had to say:

"We want to look beyond troubling issues such as the US intervention, that toppled the democratically elected popular government of Mossadeq and the drama of hostage taking of US diplomats by Iranian students."

Now. If you were a socialist, a student, an anti imperialist or someone who had a spine then you would oppose imperialist intervention absolutely. The SWP-backed Campaign Iran now belittles imperialist intervention which ended the National Front government of Mossadeq and smashed the workers' movement. Marvelous. What do comrades in the SWP have to say about this?

"Our request to the US Congress and to the US President is to scrap the fund for promoting democracy in Iran. This will pave the way for us to strengthen our bonds for people to people cooperation between America and Iran, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE OF GOVERNMENTS OF BOTH SIDES. Yes, we are confident that we can achieve what both governments have declared as intentions, but have failed to achieve in practice."

Illusions in imperialism are usually reserved for the AWL in Britain, but now it looks that the SWP-backed Campaign Iran believes that both the USA and the Iranian theocracy can achieve their aims. This is mad considering the logic of imperialism either means the subjugation of Iran through military means or the capitulation of the Iranian ruling class to Imperialist pressure, which looks like the intentions and plans of the reformist faction headed by Khatami (which the SWP support). The outcome those of us in HOPI support is for the defeat of imperialism and for the destruction of the Islamic republic by the workers, students, democratic and national movements.

"3. To the American President:. You have declared your deep respect and affection for the Iranian people. We want to take you at your word. So, here is a group of independent Iranians asking you:

(a) to dismantle the fund for democracy, which has had an outcome completely opposite to your declared goals

(b) to set up a non-partisan panel of scholars to study ways and means of easing sanctions so that independent and genuine Iranian civil society and scholars can cooperate with their US counterparts, observing universally accepted code of ethics, including transparency, accountability and partnerships based on equality and equity. We will respect international law, and the laws of both countries. What we do not like about the laws, we will try and change through non-confrontational dialogue and committed advocacy."

Now this is just plain bizarre. George Bush has such affection for the Iranian people he is ready launch a nuclear attack on them. The fund for democracy is clearly part of the declared goals set out by the US ruling class to install a more compliant regime in Iran. The second bit on international law is equally as bizarre. UN and EU sanctions have been imposed legally in international law. Does that make them ok? The legal sanctions on Iraq killed millions and the legal sanctions on Iran are having a considerable effect on inflation, unemployment and the working class. How does the SWP-backed Campaign Iran see international law being changed against sanctions, when international law has never been at the service of the oppressed but always at the service of the oppressors?

The students' movement in Iran has learnt a bloody lesson in what happens when you support the reformist faction of the Iranian ruling class. The Fedayeen majority and those good old stalinists in Tudeh are still following a stagist programme which has faith in a democratic settlement coming from an alliance between them and the murdering reformists; this can only lead to political subordination and the eventual physical liquidation of another generation of resistance against the Islamic republic.

I am reading 'Revolution and counter revolution in Iran' by Phil Marshall. It is an SWP book printed in 1988. I would urge comrades (especially SWP comrades!!!) to read what the SWP used to think and they will see that the SWP used to hold a far more healthy, internationalist and revolutinary position.

Student leader assassinated in El Salvador

2008-07-16T11:41:00.000-07:00

On June 26, at around 10.40pm, comrade Ángel Humberto Martínez Cerón was assassinated just a few metres from his home. He was the General Coordinator of the “January 24″ Revolutionary Socialist Students Block (known as BERS-24). The political activity this revolutionary young militant was involved in was the reason why the ruling class decided to silence him.

Comrade Ángel had a spirit of sacrifice for the cause of socialism, and he was aware of the possible consequences of genuine revolutionary activity. He would always say that “we do not need any more martyrs, what we need is revolutionaries dedicating all their energies to the struggle, we need them alive to build socialism”. The best tribute we can pay to the comrade is to continue his struggle, never to lose our convictions. He had the qualities of a genuine leader, he was able to inspire confidence and give strength to comrades when they most needed it. Without doubt, the memory of the comrade will inspire future generations to carry on the struggle.

BERS-24 is one of the very few organizations carrying out revolutionary work amongst the youth in Santa Ana, a department in the interior. Currently they are involved in the struggle against the increase in transport prices of, having recently organized a demonstration with 200 students. As a result they have been victims of constant police harassment. Two police officers, numbers 02-1841 and 02-1840, have “accompanied” their daily activities, plainclothes police officers follow the most known members of the organization, and three members of the BERS-24, including Ángel were recently arrested after a protest against the high cost of living. The ruling class is afraid of their activities and will not hesitate to use all means at their disposal to prevent organizations like this from growing and becoming stronger.

However, the assassination of Ángel will not be the end of this campaign of harassment and repression. We hold the mayor of Santa Ana, Orlando Mena, and Francisco Rovira, the Director of the National Civilian Police, responsible for any further attacks and aggressions against FMLN members in Santa Ana, and particularly against those who are part of BERS-24. This assassination reminds us of the sicariato (hired gun killings of activists) in the 1980s. Some of the witnesses say that those who carried out the killing were wearing black balaclavas and footprints matching those of the boots worn by the Special Forces of the National Civilian Police were found at the scene of the crime.

We call on the FMLN to come out publicly against this killing, since this is an attack against all the left-wing organizations in the country. The comrades from of BERS-24 are genuine members of the FMLN and they may face further repression. We ask the FMLN to take up the case and protect the comrades. We cannot allow another political killing to go unpunished. The left-wing and working class organizations should respond by calling a 24-hour general strike against political attacks, killings and harassment.

The ruling class will blame criminal gangs (which they are also responsible for) for this killing. However, we know who organized his assassination. Ángel joins a long list of revolutionaries who have been silenced since the signing of the peace agreements. Under capitalism, the struggle for the emancipation of the working people is considered a crime, a crime against the interests of the ruling class, and they know how to protect their interests, their wealth which has been created with the sweat of the workers.

The alternative is: socialism or barbarism. Under capitalism the emancipation of the working class will not be possible. Today the task is to consolidate strong Marxist organizations. The world socialist revolution is the only way forward and we are convinced that BERS-24 will be at the forefront of the struggle for workers’ interests.

We swear on comrade that we will win!

No more martyrs, the FMLN must respond with mass struggle in the streets!

Workers of all countries unite!

Sign the petition

against attacks on the BPJ, FMLN and the Salvadorean left in general.

FARC tricked by the 'Red Cross'

2008-07-16T11:17:00.000-07:00

In Columbia being a trade unionist, a communist or simply not knowing when to shut up can find you on the wrong end of the government backed right wing death squads. The FARC has carried out a 'revolutionary' war since 1964. At it's height the FARC controlled massive areas of rural Columbia and had a large following in the cities. This has decreased over recent years and the strength of the FARC has fallen to maybe as low as 6,000.

I have very little sympathy with the FARC, their terrible politics only discredit Marxism. Not to mention the rape of female comrades, child soldiers and their role in the drugs trade.

Recently the Columbian army released Ingrid Betancourt and other hostages in a 'heroic' mission dressed up as members of the Red Cross. This along with the death of leading members is leaving FARC in further disarray. Maybe Uribe will make good on his promises to smash the FARC. Is FARC on a downward spiral to the depths marginalisation just like Sendero Luminoso in Peru?

Bob Crow's call for a new workers' party

2008-07-05T13:15:00.000-07:00

Comrades may be aware that the Socialist Party (SP) run Campaign for a New Workers' Party (CNWP) recently held its conference. A lot of reports have come out on this, so I want to link some of them here:

CPGB - Weekly Worker
Permanent Revolution
Socialist Alliance
Socialist Party
AVP Blog
Workers Power

I have just watched Bob Crow speak at the event and I was largely uninspired. You can watch the video of him speak at cnwp.org.uk

A lot of moves have been made over the last period to build a left alternative to the Labour Party. In all of them the politics of Marxism were watered down or just deleted. Scargill demanded that everyone left their baggage at the door when trying to form the Socialist Labour Party and when a few refused it was through bureaucratic means that he and his Stalinist followers ensured the mass exodus from the project. The Socialist Alliance (SA), represented an opportunity of a generation. In the SA there was potential for the left to honestly talk about differences and build practical and theoretical unity. The SWP strangled the SA and then ditched it, as John Rees led them into building the popular front Respect (which has been an astounding success- the leadership of the SWP should be congratulated on putting the possibility of a united party back for many years). The Respect debacle has been covered everywhere and I don’t really want to say anymore than it was a pile of shit with a leadership that pissed away the potential of the anti war movement.

Bob Crow wants the CNWP to go down the same route as a lot of unity projects,namely cutting down our politics, and dumbing down what we believe in. In anticipation of the masses flooding to a new old Labour party. The only problem is, the masses are not flooding in, as Respect, SA and the CNWP highlight. In fact the left is getting smaller.

His speech could have come from Lindsay German, Alan Thornett or Arthur Scargill. What they all have in common is the wish for Marxists to dress themselves up as something else in order to trick the thick working class into joining their respective front organisations. The problem being that the working class ain't that thick.

What always baffles me is that when Marxists get together to form a new organisation of the class they always forget their Marxism on their book shelves or in the meeting room of their own little sect. Why is this? Can Marxism not win millions in the long term? Can Marxism not change the world? It can do both but it looks like we will be stuck with warmed up labourism from the Left again.

The Left needs to look at what is needed, what the tasks at hand are. The reality is we are further from a united party than ever and the majority of the left is running around like chickens with no heads from one failed project to another.